m^. 



W. 







Class _B/F_^ 

Book ^^:L_ 

CopyiightN" 

COPVRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



BAPTISM, 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE 

SCRIPTURALLY PRESENTED 

IN A CONVERSATION BETWEEN A B ^PTIST 
AND A PRESBYTERIAN. 



BY 

REV. JAMES THOMAS SAILES. 




RICHMOND, VA. : 

Presbyterian Committee of Publication. 
1907. 






iwo G<'«i** Received 

OCT 24 I90f 

COPY 3. 



Copyright by 

James Thomas Sailes 

1907. 



Printed, by 

Whittet & Sheppbhson, 

ElctLinond, Va. 



TO ALL SEEKERS AFTER TRUTH 

ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM 

THIS WORK IS DEDICATED 

BY THE AUTHOR. 



PREFACE. 



During a ministry of nearly thirty years, spent in 
Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas, and principally in evan- 
gelistic work, I have had many opportunities of listening 
to disputations on the subject of baptism. In country 
and village Baptist Churches it has furnished the theme 
for almost every sermon for years ; and the more ignorant 
the minister and people, the more frequently has the sub- 
ject been discussed. Indeed, it has happened, not infre- 
quently, that children at the common schools have made 
this subject the cause of battles royal on the play-ground 
during recess. 

The frequent discussion of the subject by immersers 
has had its effect upon the minds of the people, who were 
compelled to listen, if they went to preaching at all, to the 
extent that those who were not well-grounded on the doc- 
trine of sprinkling or pouring, had their views so 
changed, or so modified^ as to give rise to a feeling of in- 
difference on the subject. So liberal have many Pedo- 
baptists become, that they allow that it is a matter of but 
little consequence how the sacrament is administered, 
provided the thing be called baptism. 

It has often been thrown in the face of Presbyterian 
young people, that their ministers do not preach on bap- 
tism, because they have no Scriptural grounds on which 
to stand ; and at the close of a Baptist protracted meeting, 
not long ago, the minister told his congregation that ''it 
was universally conceded by all intelligent people that 
immersion, and immersion alone, is Bible baptism." 



6 PREFACE. 

Xow. if PresBvterian and other Pedobaptist ministers 
undertook to refute these and all the other false state- 
ments and charges made by immersers, their whole time 
would be consumed in the undertaking. I think it may 
be truthfully said of Presbyterian and other ministers 
who beheve in sprinkling or pouring, that they are more 
concerned about obeying the injunction — ''live peaceably 
with all men" — than they are about their Scriptural 
grounds on baptism. They feel so sure of these that 
they do not think it necessar}- to constantly show them up. 

A few years ago I was called to the pastorate of a 
church in a town of some six or seven thousand inhabi- 
tants, and in which were organizations of almost all 
denominations under the sun. Several of my officers and 
members had married ladies belonging to other denom- 
inations,, principally Baptists and Campbellites. These 
intermarriages had given rise to luke-warmness and lack 
of loyalty to the Presbyterian Church and its doctrines; 
and it not infrequently happened that members of my 
Church would pass their own house of worship on their 
way to others, where the service was more ornate, or 
cyclonic. I was much troubled over the existing state of 
affairs, especially on the views of many of my people 
on the subject of baptism. I conceived it to be my duty 
to instruct them on this subject, but was afraid if I did 
it on the Sabbath days — so much was needed to be done — 
ii might become monotonous and fail to accomplish my 
object. I therefore concluded to deliver a course of lec- 
tures on the subject of baptism at prayer-meeting, and 
so announced to my congregation. I found the plan 
adopted a good one. The services were well attended- 
and the results most gratifying. Several Campbellites 
and Baptists united with my Church, and thus was intro- 
duced into families harmony, where religious discord had 
previously existed. 



PREFACE. 7 

I had, in my library, several works on the subject of 
baptism, into which I had looked before preparing my 
lectures, but the manner in which they treated the subject 
did not satisfy my mind, nor was it adapted to the mind 
of those who would hear me. They were too dry and too 
learned for the people I expected to address, and hence 
I laid them back again to their repose. I thought within 
myself, if baptism is a sacrament instituted by the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and was ordered to be continued in the 
Church, the Word of God itself should be the guide to its 
form and administration, and should be clear enough to 
enable us to avoid mistakes in reference to it, without 
perplexing the mind by explanations and derivations 
from the Greek or Hebrew ; something with which the 
people were unfamiliar. And as our common English 
translation was as near perfection as our knowledge of 
the ancient languages in which the Scriptures were ori- 
ginally written would admit, the common English Bible 
should be the only guide to direct us in the administration 
of this holy ordinance. To the English Bible, then, I 
directed my attention, and I determined, at the very be- 
ginning, that should I learn from it that immersion was 
the mode of baptism taught therein, I would forsake the 
Church of my inheritance and affection, and sever the 
family ties and traditions of the generations of my fore- 
fathers, and seek membership in a Church that practiced 
the Bible mode of baptism. I believe I went to the study 
of the Word with a mind as open to conviction, and as 
free from prejudice and the influences of early education 
as it is possible for a man to do and to have. 

This little volume contains the result of my investiga- 
tion of God's Word, in as clear and concise a form as 
was possible in the time at my command and for the 
object in view. No doubt it has its faults, faults, too, 



8 PREFACE. 

that I might remedy if I were to write again. It may be 
too elaborate here and there and not elaborate enough in 
other places. But it is too late now to remedy these 
defects. 

Recent statements of immersers, and the effects of 
these statements upon those who ought to be Pedobap- 
tists, led to its publication. I have put it into the form of 
a dialogue between a Presbyterian and a Baptist to make 
it interesting and instructive to young people, and have 
avoided almost all reference to the original languages of 
Scripture. I have put into the mouth of Robert, the 
Baptist, the strongest arguments I have ever heard used 
by immersers, if not more and better than they generally 
use. If I succeed in furnishing young people with good, 
because biblical, reason, for sprinkling or pouring, and 
induce them to study the Bible for themselves, and help 
them to understand God's Word on this important sub- 
ject, my object shall have been accomplished, and I shall 
feel amply repaid for the time and thought given to it. 
With this in view, I send it forth into the Church and 
into the world, praying God's blessing upon it. I believe 
that, as a common sense view of Christian baptism, it 
will supply a long- felt want in the Church. 

J. T. Sailes. 



BAPTISM: 

ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 



A DIALOGUE between Robert and James on the 
subject of baptism. Robert is a member of the 
Baptist Church, and James of the Presbyterian, and both 
are honest and pious men, and warm, personal friends ; 
and each, of course, thinks the' mode of baptism practiced 
in his Church the right and scriptural one. They have 
frequently conversed with each other on the subject of 
religion, and have been mutually benefitted by their heart- 
to-heart talks. 

On one occasion, however, their conversation took a 
more definite form than usual. Robert, apparently full 
of the subject, approached James with eyes sparkling and 
countenance all aglow with enthusiasm, and said : 

"Brother James, I would be so glad if you would join 
the Church. I believe your heart is right ; now, if we 
could just get your head right, all would be right." 

James. — What do you mean. Brother Robert, by say- 
ing you ''would be so glad if I would join the Church?" 
You certainly know that I have been a member of the 
Church for many years. 

Robert. — Friend James, I believe you are a Christian, 
and I know you to be an intelligent and conscientious 
man, and therefore I speak to you with a good deal of 
diffidence. My respect and friendship for you have often 
led me to the point of speaking with you on this impor- 
tant subject; but I have refrained until now. I feel, how- 



10 BAPTISM. 

ever, that I would be doing myself a wrong if I repress 
the impulses of my heart any longer. I believe it is 
needed only to call your attention to the Bible mode of 
Christian baptism, and your intelligent discernment of 
gospel teaching will convince you at once, that you have 
never ye!t been baptized, and consequently not yet a 
mem.ber of the Church. 

James. — Brother Robert, I believe you to be thoroughly 
honest in your intentions and convictions, and therefore 
take no offence at your language. But I must say that, 
had I less confidence in your piety, or doubted the kindli- 
ness of your intentions, your language would be an insult 
to my moral honesty and intelligence. But I believe you 
do not mean to offend, and therefore take no offence, and 
would be glad if you would instruct me out of the Bible 
upon those points on which you consider my knowledge 
deficient. It would please me very much to have your 
guidance and assistance in the investigation of the Scrip- 
tures on the subject of baptism, and if you can come up to 
my home after business, say to-morrow night, I will 
find a quiet spot where we can read and study the Bible to- 
gether, and try to find out whether the Bible teaches a 
mode of baptism, or whether a mode can be logically de- 
duced from it. And even should we fail to discover a 
mode of baptism, our study of the Word will do us good. 

Robert. — 'Very well. Brother James, I will be glad to 
go to your house to-morrow after business hours to study 
the Bible with you on the subject of baptism, and I feel 
assured you will soon see that immersion is the Bible 
mode, and, consequently, that nothing else is, or can be, 
Christian baptism but immersion. 

On the following evening, as agreed upon, Robert went 
to James' house, and both retired to the library, where, 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. ii 

without interruption, they could enter upon an investi- 
gation of the Scriptures on the subject of baptism. Evi- 
dently Robert was much pleased, as a smile was upon 
his countenance as he remarked to his friend : 

Robert. — Brother James, I am so glad you have con- 
sented to study the subject of baptism with me, for I 
feel confident you will soon be convinced that you have 
never been baptized. 

James. — Well, my brother, I wish to be right on all 
matters of religion, and if I am wrong on the Sacrament 
of baptism, I shall feel very grateful to you for setting 
me right. Indeed, I have never given the subject much 
thought — I have taken it for granted that the great Pres- 
byterian Church was as nearly right in all its forms and 
doctrines as any Church could be. You know that my 
Church is proverbial for an educated ministry ; and when 
its thousands of ministers, and thousands of thoroughly 
educated ministers of other denominations with them, 
practice sprinkling or pouring as Christian baptism, I 
had no other thought than that these intellectual and con- 
secrated men practice what the Bible taught on the 
subject. 

Robert. — I must say. Brother James, that your con- 
clusion as to the rightness of sprinkling or pouring, under 
the circumstances, was but natural. Your case but proves 
how easy it is for an intelligent Christian man to believe 
a thing to be right, which the Bible teaches to be wrong. 

James. — Brother Robert, your zeal on the subject of 
immersion leads you to forget that respect for the honesty 
of others, which usually distinguishes you from a large 
majority of your brethren. You certainly perceive that 
your statement charges the thousands of Presbyterian 
and other ministers who practice sprinkling or pouring 
with dishonesty ; for it certainly is dishonest, if nothing 



12 



BAPTISM. 



worse, to practice and to teach a thing which, you say, is 
contrary to the Word of God, and which, according to 
your view of the matter, is so plainly in disagreement 
therewith. 

Robert. — Brother James, I must confess that I am 
zealous on the subject of baptism; but I do not wish to 
be disrespectful to those who differ from me. I do not 
charge your ministers and others with dishonesty, but I 
think they have fallen into the mistake just as you have 
done. They have been reared up in Churches which prac 
ticed sprinkling, and, like you, have never given . the 
subject any thought for themselves. 

James. — Well, Brother Robert, your explanation is 
about as complimentary to these ministers as your im- 
plied charge of dishonesty. But we will let all that pass, 
for I believe you do not mean to cast reflections upon 
either their piety, intelligence or moral honesty. So now 
to the business before us. As you and your Church attach 
a great deal of importance to this subject, and as I believe 
it worthy of very serious consideration, as all ordinances 
of the Lord's appointment are, I suggest that we go into 
this investigation, not only prayerfully, but, that we lay 
aside for the time being, if we can, all preconceived 
opinions and the influences of previous instruction, and 
enter upon the investigation of God's Word with minds 
as free from prejudice as possible. Let us try for our- 
selves if we can discover what the Scriptures do actually 
teach on this subject of baptism. 

Robert. — Well, Brother James, your proposition is a 
fair one, and I agree to it willingly. 

James. — Very well, then, let us clearly understand each 
other at the very beginning, so that all misapprehension 
as to the meaning of terms may be avoided; and in order 
to this I ask you how many sacraments you recognize 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 13 

as having been instituted by our Lord and Saviour in the 
Christian Church? 

Robert. — ^Why, two, of course — Baptism and the 
Lord's Supper. 

James. — Very well, Brother Robert, we agree in this, 
that there are but two sacraments in the Christian Church. 
Now, I would like to know what your opinion is as to 
the object of a sacrament? Why was it instituted? 

Robert. — Our Lord's command in reference to the 
Supper is : "Do this in remembrance of me ; do this till I 
come again," and the emblems, or the bread and wine, 
represent his broken body and shed blood. And the 
Apostle Paul tells us in ist Cor. xi. 26, that, as often as 
we observe the Supper, "we do show the Lord's death 
till he come." So that, I take it, a sacrament was insti- 
tuted to represent something, and to keep that thing be- 
fore our mind. 

James. — Very well, then. Brother Robert, if I under- 
stand you, the breaking of the bread and the pouring of 
the wine, in the Lord's Supper, represent the bruising of, 
the body and the shedding of the blood of our Saviour 
upon the cross for sin ? 

Robert. — You understand me correctly in this. That 
is what I think the Lord's Supper was intended to rep- 
resent. 

James. — Well, Brother Robert, what was the other 
sacrament — baptism — intended to represent? I think a 
sacrament, in the very nature of the case, represents some- 
thing. In the Old Testament, or Jewish Church, the Sac- 
rament of the Passover commemorated and represented 
the passing over of the houses whose door-posts were 
sprinkled with the blood, by the destroying angel ; and the 
Sacrament of Circumcision represented the cleansing of 
the heart by the power of the Holy Ghost, as the Apostle 
Paul clearly teaches in Romans ii. 28, 29. 



14 BAPTISM. 

Robert. — The Sacrament of Baptism represents the 
burial and resurrection of our Lord. But, Brother James, 
I think you are very much mistaken when you speak of 
the Passover and Circumcision as sacraments. Sacra- 
ments are divine ordinances in the Church, and you know- 
there was no Church until Christ came and set it up. 

James. — Why, Brother Robert, I am astonished to hear 
you say there was no Church until our Saviour came and 
set it up. Was God and the world without a Church for 
upwards of four thousand years ? But, perhaps, we drffer 
in our views as to what a Church is — as to what consti- 
tutes a Church. What is your idea of a Church? 

Robert. — Oh a Church is a number of men and women 
who profess faith in Jesus Christ, and who have been bap- 
tized by immersion. But, indeed, I have not thought 
much about the matter. 

James. — But, Brother Robert, this matter of a Church, 
to which, it seems, you have given but little thought, I 
regard as being very important. Surely to know some- 
thing of those parties who, in every age previous to the 
coming of Christ, bore witness to God, should be a mat- 
ter of great interest to those of the present day who bear 
witness to the same God. There can be no difference in 
the sight of God between those who worshipped him 
before Christ came and those who worship him now. If, 
in his mercy, he has made provision for his people to-day 
for their growth in grace and knowledge, one would ex- 
pect that he had made like provision for his people in all 
ages. Anything else would not be like God. Hence he 
must have had a Church previous to the appearance of our 
Lord in the flesh. To my mind, the Church of God con- 
sists of all those who, in every age and everywhere, to- 
gether with their children, profess the true religion, and 
to whom, in his loving kindness, he has granted the min- 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 15 

istry, oracles and ordinances. Of course, this Church, 
which embraces all true believers and their children, is 
to-day divided and sub-divided into denominations and 
congregations. 

Robert. — Well, Brother James^ I have not thought 
much upon the subject, and am not prepared to deny your 
position, or to defend my own. Your definition of a 
Church sounds reasonable, and it does look like God would 
have had a Church in the world long before the opening 
of the Christian era. But I have always heard our preach- 
ers say that the Church was organized by John the Bap- 
tist, and for myself have given the matter no thought 
whatever. 

James. — It is not easy to tell from Baptist teaching 
anything clearly as to the author and origin of the Chris- 
tian Church. Some of your preachers say John set it up, 
while others again say it was not set up until Pentecost. 
Hence, I do not think you stand alone, Brother Robert, 
in your ignorance of this subject. But I can see good 
reasons why your preachers should deny the existence 
of the Church previous to the Christian era. 

Robert. — Brother James^ if the Church existed pre- 
vious to the Christian era, I cannot see just now why it 
should be denied. But our preachers deny the existence 
of a Church before John's day, and therefore I suppose 
there was no Church. 

James. — Brother Robert, your loyalty to your preach- 
ers cannot be doubted ; but you will perceive that if they 
admitted the existence of the Church previous to the 
Christian era, they would place themselves in a very em- 
barrassing position. For instance, they might be asked 
why they exclude infants and children from church mem- 
bership? It is very evident that infants and children 
were members of the Church long before the Christian 



i6 ' BAPTISM. 

era. But, even as it is, the position of you Baptists is not 
without confusion. If you, who are such sticklers for 
Church Order, would think about it, you would, or at 
least you could, see that the Church in its origin, accord- 
ing to your theory, arose in a very misty haze. 

Robert. — Brother James, there is no ''misty haze," as 
you term it, about the origin of the Church from our 
standpoint. Without doubt, John the Baptist organized 
the Church, and that he did not admit infants and chil- 
dren into it is evident, for the people were baptized into 
repentance, and infants could not repent. 

James. — Brother Robert, your argument seems very 
plausible. But I would like to know by what authority 
John organized a Church? Such authority was not em- 
braced in his commission. He was not sent to organize a 
Church, *^but to prepare the way for the Lord." Then, 
again, you Baptists will not take into your membership 
a person, though he may have been immersed, unless he 
had been immersed by a Baptist preacher. How does this 
consist with John's case? You say John was a Baptist 
preacher. I ask you who made him such, and who im- 
mersed him? There should be consistency. If there was 
no Church before John, then John himself could not have 
been immersed, for there was no Baptist preacher to im- 
merse him. If he was not immersed, he was not a Bap- 
tist preacher, and not being a Baptist preacher, he could 
not, according to Baptist theory and practice, admit any 
one into the Church. 

Robert. — Brother James, I am afraid you have the best 
of me in this matter. But as I have just said, I have not 
given the subject any thought, and our preachers have all 
affirmed so often that John was a Baptist, and organized 
the Church, that I was entirely satisfied as to the truth of 
the matter. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 17 

James. — Just so, Brother Robert. I think a large ma- 
jority of your people are just like you in this particular. 
But allow me to put two simple and plain questions to 
you now : Did you ever hear any of your preachers pro- 
duce a clear, logical argument from Scripture in favor 
of the position they take as to John organizing the 
Church? And did you ever hear any of your preachers 
give a clear, logical argument from Scripture in favor of 
immersion? 

Robert. — Brother James, I believe I must admit that 
I have never heard any of them reason to any length on 
the subjects you mention, and, indeed, I never saw until 
now any necessity for an argument on them. 

James. — ^It is somewhat remarkable that they do not 
reason on these subjects — subjects of controversy — and 
if some of them do attempt it, they do not first establish 
the truth of their premises. They proceed upon the 
hypotheses that their premises are true^ and true because 
they say so; when the fact is their conclusion is denied, 
because the truth of their premises is denied. If that 
upon which an argument is based is not admitted as true, 
the argument amounts to nothing. There is quite a dif- 
fenence beitween argument and affirmation. You im- 
mersers succeed beautifully in making affirmations — you 
affirm, affirm, affirm, and draw conclusions without first 
proving the truth of your affirmations, and you wonder 
that every one is not as ready to accept your affirmations 
as you are to make them. But let us return to the subject 
of baptism, and try to understand each other as we go 
along. Do I understand you to say that immersion and 
immersion alone is Christian baptism; and that baptism 
was intended to represent the burial and resurrection of 
our Lord Jesus Christ ? 

Robert. — You understand me correctly. Brother James. 



i8 BAPTISM. 

THat is my position, and the position of my Church? 
Now, what do you think baptism represents? 

James. — I think baptism represents the work of the 
Holy Spirit in that great change in man, usually called 
regeneration. Or, in other words, Christian baptism rep- 
resents that baptism of the Holy Ghost spoken of by John 
and our Saviour. 

Robert. — Our ideas then. Brother James, differ radi- 
cally as to the thing represented. We immerse to repre- 
sent the burial and resurrection of Christ ; you sprinkle or 
pour to represent the baptism of the Holy Ghost. These 
things are different and distinct, and, of course, the things 
that represent them must be two, and different things. So 
that immersion being Christian baptism, sprinkling or 
pouring is not. I think you ought to admit this at once, 
Brother James. 

James. — Brother Robert, you reason like a Baptist, and 
quite as well, too, as most of your brethren. You over- 
look the fact that the very thing you affirm as true is the 
very thing I deny. You affirm that immersion is Chris- 
tian baptism, and that is the very thing I deny. 
Xow, it is for you to prove your proposition. Permit 
me to reason just as you have done. You notice that the 
things which we say baptism represents are two and dis- 
tinct things. The burial and resurrection of Christ is 
altogether diiterent from the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
Now, as baptism was intended to represent the baptism 
ot the Holy Ghost, nothing but sprinkling or pouring is 
Christian baptism, because nothing else can represent the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost. 

Robert. — Brother James, I see that my reasoning is 
very defective. Yours is as strong as mine, but both 
are wrong, because we have based our conclusion upon 
the very thing that is needed to be proved. You will not 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 19 

admit my conclusion, because you deny immersion as 
Christian baptism, and I cannot admit yours, because I 
deny that sprinkling or pouring is. 

James. — Brother Robert, your readiness to admit an 
error when perceived, gives me great hope that we will 
derive much benefit from this discussion. While we have 
made no reference as yet to the Word of God on the sub- 
ject engaging our attention, we have cleared away some 
of the brush from our pathway, and eliminated a matter 
from the discussion which has been a kind of camera ob- 
scura on the mind of people generally. 

Robert. — To what do you refer. Brother James ? 

James. — fYou know that most people, when speaking of 
the difference between immersion and sprinkling, speak 
of it only as a difference in the mode of baptizing. 

Robert. — Yes, it is generally spoken of in that way. 

James. — But you see, we have disposed of that point, 
and laid it gently on the shelf. 

Robert. — I am glad to hear you say so. Brother James ; 
but, fearing I may not have clearly caught your point, I 
would be glad to have you explain yourself. 

James. — Certainly, my brother, I will do so with pleas- 
ure. The difference between us is not, as we have already 
admitted, a difference as to mode of administering bap- 
•tism; but as to baptism itself. You say that iimnersion 
is Christian baptism, and that you immerse to represent 
the burial and resurrection of Christ; and I say that 
sprinkling or pouring is Christian baptism, and we 
sprinkle or pour to represent the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost. Now, as these things are radically different — for 
the work of the Holy Ghost is very different from the 
burial and resurrection of Christ — the things that repre- 
sent them must be different, in the nature of the case. So 
that if immersion is Christian baptism, it is evident 



/ 



20 BAPTISM. 

sprinkling or pouring is not ; and if sprinkling or pouring 
is Christian baptism, then immersion is not. They can- 
not both be Christian baptism, because they represent 
different things. 

Robert. — Brother James, I am so glad you have made 
that statement. I have all along been aware of the fact 
that the controversy on baptism did not hinge on the ques- 
tion of mode, but on the thing itself, and this is why I 
was so anxious to get you right on the subject. 

James. — My dear brother, I am quite ready to admit a 
thing as true, when it is shown to be so. 

Robert. — Then there is very little use for us to pursue 
the subject further, for you know that the word in Greek 
of which baptism is the Anglicized form, means to im- 
merse; and one of the leading preachers of our denom- 
ination — Rev. Gustavus F. Davis — whose veracity cannot 
be doubted, says that "more than eighty Pedobaptist 
writers concede that this is the meaning, and that immer- 
sion was practiced by the Apostles, and by succeeding 
Christians, for thirteen hundred years from the com- 
mencement of the Christian era." 

James. — Well, Brother Robert, I am not much of a 
Greek scholar, but my minister says that Liddell and 
Scott, in their Greek-English Lexicon, which is based on 
the German work of Francis Passow, give "to pour/' "to 
drench," as meanings of that Greek word of which you 
speak. He says, also, that they say it sometimes means 
"to immerse," "to dip." Now, if so many meanings can 
be applied to a word, how is one to know when it means 
one thing in preference to another? 

Robert. — Well, Brother, James, if your minister is cor- 
rect in this, and I have no reason to doubt his word, I 
can only say — for I am not a Greek scholar myself — that 
the meaning of a word, at any time, should be known by 
the context, or circumstances of its use. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 21 

James. — I think that is a common-sense view to take 
of the matter^ and we will see how it works when we 
begin our study of the Scriptures. As to the statements 
made by that eminent Baptist preacher you have quoted — 
Rev. Gustavus F. Davis — I must say that his affirmations 
have no weight with me whatever, except as against him- 
self. I think it detracts from a man's honor and dignity, 
and weakens his own argument, to produce witnesses in 
his behalf who stultify themselves by their evidence. He 
speaks of having "read of more than eighty Pedobaptist 
writers who gave immersion as the meaning of the origi- 
nal Greek word, and that immersion was practiced by the 
Apostles and succeeding Christians for thirteen hundred 
years." You notice he says that these upwards of eighty 
Pedobaptist writers continued to practice sprinkling 
or pouring after admitting that immersion was the mean- 
ing of the Greek word. He calls them Pedobaptists still, 
you perceive. Now, these were certainly not honest men, 
for if, after admitting that immersion is the meaning of 
the original Greek word, and that the Apostles immersed, 
and that succeeding Christians for thirteen hundred years 
immersed, they still go on to sprinkle or pour, their evi- 
dence is not good, nor worth anything, for it only proves 
their own dishonesty. Surely such men are not competent 
witnesses. Witnesses are not allowed to stultify them- 
selves. If they do, their evidence is of no weight. So 
that Rev. G. F. Davis has weakened his cause instead of 
fortifying it. But then, the preacher you quote is guilty 
of duplicity, for he wishes to make the impression that all 
Christians practiced immersion for thirteen hundred 
years, and that these upwards of eighty Pedobaptist 
writers bear testimony to that fact. It is true that he 
does not say all Christians, but that '^succeeding Chris- 
tians" practiced immersion for thirteen hundred years. 



22 BAPTISM. 

It is evident, however, that he wishes the idea to take 
hold upon the mind, that all Christians practiced immer- 
sion for thirteen hundred years succeeding the Apostles. 
Now, even if I admitted the statement to be true — that 
Christians practiced immersion for that length of time — 
it would not be, as Rev. G. F. Davis puts it, an argument 
in favor of immersion as Christian baptism, or prove im- 
mersion to be right. It might prove the antiquity of im- 
mersion, but a thing may be very old and yet not be right. 
As an illustration : The Divinity of our Lord was denied 
during the time of the Apostles, and it is denied to-day, 
and has been denied all through the ages that have inter- 
vened. That is, his Divinity has been denied for 
1,905 years. But this does not prove that our Lord is not 
Divine ; it simply proves that this doctrine has existed for 
1,905 years. So that the fact of the existence of a doc- 
trine or practice for thirteen hundred, or even 1,905 years, 
does not prove that doctrine or practice to be right. It 
simply proves the existence of that thing for that length 
of time. Hence, you see that the argument of your Iriend, 
Rev. G. F. Davis, has lost its edge — it does not cut as 
keenly as you at first thought it would, or as he intended 
it should. 

Robert. — I admit there is not so much in his argument 
as I at first imagined. Indeed I think his use of it was 
somewhat unfortunate. But what will you do with those 
other parts of his statement where he says : "that upwards 
of eighty Pedobaptist writers admit that immersion is 
the meaning of the original word haptizo. I believe it is, 
and that the Apostles practiced immersion" ? 

James. — Well, Brother Robert, I very much doubt the 
truth of his statement as to the testimony of these Pedo- 
baptist writers of whom he speaks. He wishes to make 
the impression that these writers admit that baptizo means 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 23 

to immerse, and nothing else. Now, I have just told you 
that my minister said that Liddell and Scott, and that 
German whose Lexicon they took as a book of reference, 
gave "to pour" ''to drench" as meanings of that Greek 
word; and I more than suspect that these more than 
eighty Pedobaptist writers, of whom he speaks, only ad- 
mitted that immersion was one meaning, or a meaning of 
the original word. You know there is quite a difference 
between a and the as definitive words. Men who write on 
such subjects as Christian doctrine, and who are ac- 
quainted with the ancient Greek language, are, I think, as 
a whole, honest men, and men of strong convictions, and, 
in most cases, I believe, have the courage of their con- 
victions. Now, those writers whose writings are worth 
quoting, can make an adequate support for themselves 
wherever they please to place themselves. Hence those 
Pedobaptists who admit that immersion is the meaning of 
the original Greek word, and who admit that the Apostles 
practiced immersion, would be likely to place themselves 
in line with their knowledge and convictions ; and would 
be found among immersers, and not among Pedobaptists. 
This is why I think the statement, that Pedobaptists ad- 
mit that immersion is the meaning, and the only meaning 
of the original word, must be taken with a grain of salt. 
If you immersers would only say that Pedobaptist writers 
admit, that immersion is one meaning of the original 
word, you would bring more credit to yourselves, and 
your arguments would, perhaps, have more force. 

Robert. — Brother James, I am convinced that what 
you have said is true. To bring Pedobaptists forward in 
favor of immersion weakens our cause instead of giving 
it weight. But what do you say in reference to the 
Apostles and their practice of immersion? 

James. — Do not go too fast, my good brother. It re- 



24 BAPTISM. 

mams to be seen whether the Apostles practiced immer- 
sion. It seems to me that, if God intended that the com- 
mon people should have his Word, that its language and 
ideas should be such as the common mind could grasp ; 
and, therefore, I think that you and I should be nearly as 
competent to get at its meaning as those who make great- 
er pretensions to intellectual culture. So that I think we 
may search the Word with a good deal of confidence, and 
I feel assured that, after our study, we will get pretty 
near to the truth on the subject of baptism. If the 
Apostles practiced immersion there should be no difficulty 
in perceiving it. 

Robert. — I think so myself, Brother James. I am 
very much pleased with the discussion thus far. The 
only thing that gives rise to wonder in my mind is, your 
readiness to study the Scriptures with me on the subject 
of Baptism. I have never heard a Pedobaptist minister 
preach on baptism, and did not think they would be likely 
to take the Bible to sustain their doctrine. Our ministers 
preach often on the subject, and this is why we feel so 
sure of our ground. 

James. — Well, Brother Robert, I suppose you have 
not heard Pedobaptists preach very often on the subject 
of baptism. Indeed, I have not heard them very often 
myself. But then, one need not necessarily infer from 
that that they have no ground for their doctrine. Indeed, 
it might be true, and I think it is, that they feel so sure of 
their ground, they do not think it necessary to speak often 
about it. If the repetition of a thing made it true, you 
Baptists would have the truth about baptism, without a 
doubt. But let us get to the matter that has brought us 
together. You have already said that immersion, and 
immersion alone, is Christian baptism, and that it repre- 
sents the burial and resurrection of Christ. I have said 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 25 

that sprinkling or pouring alone is Christian baptism, and 
that it represents the baptism of the Holy Ghost. You 
perceive the distinction is clearly drawn, and I think the 
first thing we should do is, to try to find out, if we can, 
what Christian baptism was intended by our Lord to rep- 
resent. It seems to me that if we can find out what bap- 
tism was intended to represent, it should not be hard to 
find the best way to represent that thing. 

Robert. — I think your plan is a good one. Brother 
James, and we will now search the Scriptures and try 
to find out, if we can, what baptism was intended to 
represent. In order to do this we will read those passages 
where baptism is mentioned. But it is now getting late, 
and we will defer our search until to-morrow night, if 
that will suit you? 

James, — That will suit me very well. Brother Robert, 
and I look forward to your coming again with a good 
deal of interest. 

On the following night, Robert presented himself at the 
home of his friend, and, as before, they retired to the 
library. Robert offered a short prayer with great earnest- 
ness for enlightenment and guidance by God's Spirit. 
After prayer James handed his friend a Bible, with the 
remark that both would use the Book, so that no mistake 
might be made in reading. 

James. — Now my friend, as you are to be my instruc- 
tor, permit me to ask you why baptism is practiced at all? 

Robert. — Because the Lord commanded it, of course. 
I am astonished. Brother James, that you should ask such 
a question. 

James. — ^Be patient with me, my good brother. No 
doubt I may ask many seemingly foolish questions; but 
you have expressed a desire that I should be immersed, or 



26 BAPTISM. 

baptized, as you call it, and as you are to be my teacher, 
in a sense, I wish my mind to be clear at every point. 
Now, I am going to ask another question, which may 
appear to you as foolish as the last, but still I want all the 
light I can get. When did our Lord give the command to 
which Christians are supposed to be rendering obedience ; 
and where is it to be found ? 

Robert. — Our Lord gave the command after his resur- 
rection, and you wiU find it in Matt, xxviii. 19. : "Go ye 
therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost." 

James. — Now, Brother Robert, is it an acknowledged 
and settled fact that the Lord gave this command after his 
resurrection, and that this is the command on which Chris- 
tians base the sacrament of baptism ? 

Robert. — You astonish me. Brother James. I have 
never heard such questions asked before. Of course this 
is the command, as there is no other laid down in the 
New Testament. 

James. — Then I understand you to say that this com- 
mand of our Lord is the only one in the New Testament 
in reference to baptism, and, consequently, the only one 
on which the Church bases the ordinance of Christian 
baptism ? 

Robert. — It can be none else, as no other is given ; but 
you excite my mind not a little. I have never heard such 
questions asked before, and cannot conceive to what they 
lead. Let us now commence our examination of the Bible. 

James. — Keep cool, my brother, there is no occasion 
for alarm. You know you are the teacher and I the pupil, 
and my only object in asking questions is to get instruc- 
tion, and to clear our path of all the brush that might 
entangle our feet, in our journey through God's Word, 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 27 

I suppose you perceive that your answers to these simple 
questions of mine have expedited our investigations very 
much. We need not now examine the Gospels as written 
by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This, you see, 
shortens the work before us a great deal. 

Robert. — I am afraid I fail to understand you, Brother 
James. Are not we to search the Bible to find out, if we 
can, what Christian baptism was intended to represent, 
and is not the Gospel of our Lord part of the Bible ? Why, 
then, should we not search the Gospels? 

James. — Brother Robert, I wish you to understand 
that I am as willing as you can possibly be to take the 
whole Word of God as "the man of our counsel ;" but I 
cannot see the necessity to consider that portion of it 
which you yourself have excluded. 

Robert. — Why, Brother James, you certainly must 
have misunderstood me. I have not excluded any por- 
tion of the Bible ; at least I did not intend to do so. 

James. — Have you not just said that the command 
given by our Saviour to baptize is laid down in the 28th 
chapter of Matt., and 19th verse? 

Robert. — Yes. 

James. — Well, was not this command given after his 
death and resurrection? 

Robert. — Yes. 

James. — Does not the Gospel, as such, end with the 
record of such things as Jesus did and said? 

Robert. — Yes. 

James. — ^Very well. If this is the command on which 
Christian baptism is based, and you say it is as no other 
is given, then no baptism on record previous to the com- 
mand to baptize can be recognized as Christian baptism. 

Robert. — Why, Brother James, you will surely admit 
that the baptisms performed by Jesus himself, as well 
as those by his disciples, were Christian baptisms ? 



28 BAPTISM. 

James. — Brother Robert, I am afraid you are allowing 
your imagination to run away with you. The Bible dis- 
tinctly says that Jesus did not baptize, John iv. 2, and 
there is no record that up until after his resurrection, he 
ordered his disciples to baptize. And as Christians are 
rendering obedience to the command of Christ as laid 
down in Matt, xxviii., 19, it is evident they do not recog- 
nize any other authority. For them this stands first, and 
on it they base Christian baptism. 

Robert. — But, Brother James, you will surely admit 
that John's baptism was Christian baptism. John im- 
mersed Christ, you know, and certainly that was Chris- 
tion baptism. 

James. — Easy, easy my brother ; not too fast just along 
here. You, yourself, have excluded John's baptism from 
Christian baptism, because it was performed before Chris- 
tion baptism was instituted. I am willing to admit that 
John baptized Christ ; but to say that he immersed him, is 
quite another thing, and remains to be proved. I can see, 
or think I can see, a distinction between the baptism of 
Christ and what is called Christian baptism. There may 
have been in vogue in John's day, or John may have in- 
stituted a thing called baptism; but that thing may have 
been, and I believe was, entirely different from Christian 
baptism in important characteristics. But to return to 
your statements. You say that the command of our Lord 
recorded in the last chapter of Matthew, is the one to 
which Christians are rendering obedience, and on which 
Christian baptism is based. Now, this being so, and I 
admit its truth, you will see at once that as Christian bap- 
tism gets its name because it was, and is, administered in 
obedience to this command, any baptisms which are not, 
and have not been, administered in obedience to this com- 
mand, cannot, consistent with truth, be called Christian 
baptism. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 29 

Robert. — My brother, I think I must admit the just- 
ness of your reasoning, although I have never had 
occasion to think along these lines. 

James. — ^Well, Brother Robert, it is a good thing to 
have new avenues of thought opened up to us. But, to 
continue : Admitting the truth of what I have said^ you 
will perceive at once, that John's baptism cannot be 
called Christian baptism, because it was not administered 
in obedience to this command of Christ. This command 
was not given until after his own and John's death; and 
certainly John could not have had his mind set upon obe- 
dience to a command that he had never heard. So that 
it must be admitted that John's baptism, whatever else it 
was, was not Christian baptism. 

Robert. — I cannot but admit the truth of what you 
say, though I fear the consequences to my cause. I had 
never, in fact, thought along the line you have opened up. 
Indeed, all our ministers talk about John's baptism in 
such a way; and especially does Rev. Gustavus F. Davis, 
in his pamphlet. No. 138, published by the American Bap- 
tist Publication Society, speak of John's baptism as Chris- 
tian baptism, so simply and with such apparent sincerity, 
that I took it for granted that what all these parties said 
was true. But your reasonings Brother James, is so sim- 
ple and plain that I cannot but admit its truth. I can 
see very clearly that two baptisms cannot be the same, 
when one was practiced before the other was instituted. 
Honesty compels me to admit that John's baptism was 
not Christian baptism. 

James. — Brother Robert, your ready admission of 
these plain truths is very gratifying indeed, and gives 
added testimony to your intellectual honesty. I do not 
think, however, that these admissions will injure your 
cause at all. It will simply do away, at least so far as 



30 BAPTISM. 

you are concerned, with the common cry of your Baptist 
brethren to us — "to follow Christ in baptism." 

Robert. — But, Brother James, we must still say to you 
to follow Christ in baptism. I mean by that that you 
should be baptized as Christ was — ^by immersion — what 
the Apostles practiced. 

James. — Brother Robert^ let us not take too much for 
granted. Let us move along in this matter slowly, and 
mark our way as we go. You Baptists are in the habit 
of taking too much for granted. You make assertions and 
just pass on as though what you said admitted of no 
controversy. We have found that John's baptism could 
not have been Christian baptism, because he was dead be- 
fore Christian baptism was instituted. Now, if John's 
baptism was not Christian baptism, how can that be 
Christian baptism which takes it for a copy? It makes 
no difference as to the mode of his baptism — whether he 
applied the water to the subject, or the subject to the 
water. His was not Christian baptism, therefore any bap- 
tism that takes his as a copy cannot be Christian baptism. 
Now, why do you ask us as Christians to submit to a 
thing that is not Christian baptism ? If it was not Chris- 
tian baptism in John's day, the same thing cannot be 
Christian baptism now. 

Robert. — Brother James, I cannot avoid your conclu- 
sion. Your reasoning is so clear and so conclusive, that 
only prejudice would try to deny it. I do not see at pres- 
ent what effect it will have on my side of the question, but 
I cannot avoid the truth of what you say. It is true that 
John baptized Christ, but it is also true that John's bap- 
tism was not Christian baptism, therefore to follow Christ 
in it, in the sense in which it is usually expressed, would 
not, in fact, be submission to Christian baptism. 

James. — Brother Robert, I admire your nobleness of 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 31 

mind in admitting so readily what you perceive to be the 
truth; although your admissions are evidently leading 
you out of your depth — at least, out of your general way 
of thinking. You Baptists are not much in the habit of 
reasoning on the subject of baptism. You make dogmatic 
assertions and expect, apparently, that every one will be- 
lieve them ; and you repeat them so often that, with the 
people as a whole, they have the same effect as if they 
were logically true. But, I assure you, by brother, that 
so far as I see at present, your admissions will neither in- 
jure your cause nor help my own. We have simply ex- 
posed a little sophistry which you Baptists play upon us 
as an argument in favor of immersion, and laid it upon 
the shelf. But this need not deter us from examining 
John's baptism, to see whether it had the same symbolic 
character as Christian baptism. Understand me my friend, 
the only objection I raise against John's baptism is 
against its use as an argument, either for or against any 
mode of Christian baptism. We just simply lay it to one 
side, in so far as an argument is concerned. 

Robert. — Well, Brother James, under the circum- 
stances, I can offer no objection to that. But suppose we 
find that John immersed, would it not be a circumstance 
favorable to immersion as baptism? 

James. — Brother Robert, I will make this concession 
to you at the very beginning: If we find that John im- 
mersed, I will admit that the Apostles immersed; for in 
all my reading of the Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles 
I cannot see where any change was ordered, or introduced 
into the Christian Church, so-called. 

Robert. — Well, Brother James, I must say that your 
concession is a very liberal one. I was beginning to feel 
somewhat shaky, as I always regarded John's baptism as 
a strong argument in favor of immersion as Christian 



32 BAPTISM. 

baptism. But now that I see it cannot be so used, your 
concession appears the more Hberal. Now, I suppose we 
are ready to investigate the Scriptures on the subject. 

James. — Yes, I am ready^ and, according to agreement, 
we are to try to find out what Christian baptism was 
intended to represent. 

Robert. — Yes, that is what we have set ourselves to 
do, and it seems to me to be the very best way to terminate 
all discussion on the subject. If we can find out what 
Christian baptism was intended to represent, it ought 
not to be hard to find the best way to represent that thing 
with water. 

James. — Brother Robert, you take a sensible view of 
this matter, and I think our plan is the only one that will 
satisfy an honest mind. Let us now turn to the 
Word of God, and let us look it as squarely and honestly 
in the face, as we have done with one another 
thus far. The first place in which baptism is mentioned 
in the New Testament, is in Matthew, third chapter, and 
is in connection with John's preaching. Please read the 
5th and 6th verses. 

Robert. — ''Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all 
Judea, and all the region round about Jordan; and were 
baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." Now 
you see, Brother James, that John immersed, for all these 
people were baptized in Jordan, confessing their sins. 

James. — Brother Robert, you are leaving the point we 
set out to find. I neither admit nor deny that John im- 
mersed, for that point is not before us just now. We 
are trying to find out, if we can, what Christian baptism 
was intended to represent. If John's baptism is to be 
considered at all, it is only in the light of that question. 
Was it intended that John's baptism should represent 
anything? If so, what was it? We will have to give a 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 33 

good deal of attention to the study of the Word, and yield 
less readily to impulse and sentiment. Please read the 
whole of the 3rd chapter of Matthew, Brother Robert, 
and tell me what you think was the object of John's mis- 
sion in the world. 

Robert. — ^Evidently the great object of his mission was 
'^to prepare the way of the Lord," and in doing this he 
exhorted the people to repentance, and baptized them. 

James. — ^You have expressed it very well. Brother 
Robert. Baptism, then, was not the principal object of 
John's mission, as you Baptists would have us believe, 
but the preparation of the way of the Lord. This work 
did not consist in leveling the hills of the country, and 
cutting out ways in the wilderness ; but in working upon 
the conscience of the people, and preparing them to re- 
ceive the Lord with gladness, when he would come. John 
administered baptism on the promise of reformation of 
conduct — reformation of life was the great burden of 
his preaching. We learn this from the 7th and 8th 
verses. "When he saw many of the Pharisees and 
Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O gen- 
eration of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the 
wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for 
repentance" — or, as you will find there in the margin of 
your Bible, "Bring forth therefore fruits answerable to 
amendment of life." So that John's preaching consisted 
in calling the people to repentance, and in directing their 
mind to the Lord Jesus, who was to come, and who should 
"baptize them with the Holy Ghost and with fire." He 
exhorted them to reformation of life, and baptized on the 
promise of this reformation. Hence, it is evident, that 
John's baptism had reference to this amendment of lile, 
and was given as a sign of the change in their moral 
character. 



34 BAPTISM. 

Robert, — It seems to me, Brother James, that you have 
presented the truth in this connection, except that the 
Bible does not say anything about the people promising 
amendment of life. » 

James. — But, my brother, the very fact of the people 
"confessing their sins" carries with it the idea that they 
would not any longer commit those sins. So that, in fact, 
they did promise reformation of life, and because of this 
promise, John baptized them. Hence, I repeat that John's 
baptism was a sign or token of amendment of life. Now, 
this was as far as John and the people could go. The 
people could confess their sins and promise reformation 
of life, and John could baptize them as a token of this 
reformation. But here, both must stop. Neither his bap- 
tism nor their promise of reformation could produce a 
change in their heart, which is the seat of all moral right 
and wrong. "Not by might, nor by power, but by my 
Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts." Hence, John, recogniz- 
ing the impotency of all concerned, directs their mind to 
the Lamb of God, who would baptize them with the Holy 
Ghost, which baptism alone could produce that change 
in the heart which is necessary to a true and permanent 
change of life and character. 

Robert. — Brother James, I think you have got that 
thing about right. It is almost equal to a sermon to lis- 
ten to your explanation of the Scriptures. 

James. — Well, let us go a little further. John's bap- 
tism, being a sign of reformation of conduct, which is 
outward, and the baptism of the Holy Ghost producing 
tlat change in the heart, which is inward, and which is 
necessary to all true and permanent change of moral 
character, must have been intended as a symbol, or repre- 
sentative of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I think John 
makes this plain himself in the nth verse, when he says: 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 35 

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but 
he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes 
I am not worthy to bear ; he will baptize you with the Holy 
Ghost and with fire." The very contrast of the two bap- 
tisms shows their relation to one another. John's bap- 
tism indicated the moral impurity of the party to whom 
it was applied ; but the baptism of the Holy Ghost puri- 
fies the party to whom it is applied — the first is a symbol 
or representative of the second. This position is still fur- 
ther confirmed by the conversation between our Saviour 
and John when Jesus came to him for baptism. We will 
read the 13th and 14th verses : "Then cometh Jesus from 
Galilee to Jordan, unto John, to be baptized of him. But 
John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of 
thee, and comest thou to me?" John here brings the two 
baptisms into contrast in such a way as to make his but a 
symbol of Christ's, which is by the Holy Ghost. It is 
the same as if he had said : "I baptize as a sign of amend- 
ment of life, which may or may not take place; but your 
baptism will actually produce that amendment. I am a 
man, like all other men, and therefore need the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost myself; but you are not like me and 
other men — you have not sinned and have therefore noth- 
ing to confess. I baptize unto repentance, but you have 
nothing to confess or repent of; my baptism therefore in 
your case would be a meaningless ceremony — it would 
symbolize nothing in your case." But the Lord himself 
confirms the symbolic character of John's baptism in his 
conversation with his disciples, just before his ascension, 
when he says: "For John truly baptized with water; 
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many 
days hence." Acts i. 5. Here, you perceive, the Saviour 
connects the two baptisms in such a way as to make the 
one a representative of the other. John baptized with 



36 BAPTISM. 

water, but his baptism could confer no power, as it was 
merely a symbol of that baptism of the Holy Ghost, which 
would give power from above. 

Robert. — I must confess. Brother James, that I can 
find no flaw in your exposition of John's baptism. I be- 
lieve now, indeed, I cannot but believe, that John's bap- 
tism was a symbol of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. I 
do not know what effect this is going to have on the 
doctrine of immersion^ but I must yield to the truth as I 
perceive it as we go along. 

James. — Your readiness to acknowledge the truth is 
most commendable, my brother. But you remember we 
promised to divest our minds, as far as possible, of all 
early instruction and pre-conceived opinions on the sub- 
ject of baptism, and take God's Word as the man of our 
counsel. Let us continue this, and I have no doubt but 
our investigation of the Scriptures will prove beneficial 
to us both in the end. We have now disposed of John's 
baptism, at least for the present, and as it is the only 
baptism treated of in the Gospel, we may push our inves- 
tigations to the Acts and Epistles. But it is getting late, 
and we had better defer further study until another time. 
Can you come again to-morrow night ? 

Robert. — Yes, I will come again to-morrow night. I 
am getting very much interested in our meetings and' 
propose continuing our investigations until we exhaust 
the subject of baptism. 

James. It will be a source of pleasure to me to meet 
you as often as you can come. Good-night. 

On the following night Robert presented himself as 
usual at the home of James, and both retired to the library 
as before. 

James. — Having disposed of John's baptism, we will 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 37 

now direct our attention to the baptisms mentioned in 
the Acts of the Apostles. 

Robert. — The first baptisms mentioned after our 
Lord's ascension are recorded in the 2nd chapter of Acts. 
I will read the 37th and 38th verses: "Now, when they 
heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto 
Peter and the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren, 
what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them. Repent 
and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus 
Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost." And the 41st verse : 'Then they 
that gladly received his word were baptized." 

James. — The water baptism here, you perceive, is in 
connection with the baptism of the Holy Ghost on the day 
of Pentecost, and was administered in the name of Jesus 
on their repentance and profession of faith in him. There 
are two ideas presented here in reference to the work of 
the Holy Spirit. The first is in producing in the heart 
that repentance which is accompanied with remission of 
sins ; the second has reference to extraordinary power 
conferred upon the subjects of his gifts, as those on the 
Apostles in the early part of the day. Peter had just told 
the people of the great sin they had committed in crucify- 
ing the Lord Jesus — ^^that God had exalted him, and that 
he, having received of the Father the promise of the Holy 
Ghost, had shed him forth in the manner they had just 
witnessed. And now, "be assured of this fact all ye of 
Israel," said Peter ; "That God hath made this same Jesus 
whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." The 
Holy Spirit used these words to convict the people of 
their sins, and they asked Peter and the rest what they 
should do. Peter replied that if they would take this 
same Jesus to be their Lord, they would receive remission 
of sins, and they were to show their acceptance of him 



38 BAPTISM. 

by submission to baptism in his name. This water bap- 
tism was evidently, therefore, a sign of their faith. But, 
as no man "can call Jesus Lord but by the Holy Ghost/' 
if these parties truly accepted of Christ, they w^ere led to 
do so by the Holy Ghost working in them ; and hence 
their water baptism was not only a sign of their faith, but 
was also a syipbol of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 

Robert. — Brother James, I think you have brought out 
the truth in reference to these baptisms. At least, I can- 
not refute what you have said. It is very evident, not 
only from the verses that contain the record of these bap- 
tisms, but from the whole chapter, that they were ad- 
ministered in connection wuth the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost. The next baptism recorded is in Acts viii. 12, 13. 
I will read the passage : "But when they believed Philip 
preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and 
the name of Jesus Christy they were baptized, both men 
and women. Then Simon himself believed also ; and 
when he was baptized he continued with Philip, and 
wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were 
done.'' 

James. — You will notice. Brother Robert, that water 
baptism is mentioned here in connection with a profes- 
sion of faith. It was after the men and women made a 
profession of their faith in Christ they were baptized. It 
was after Simon believed that he was baptized. This 
teaches very clearly that water baptism was administered 
not only as a sign of their faith, but as a symbol of the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost. Faith is the instrument of 
our salvation, and as regeneration or the second birth, or 
baptism of the Holy Ghost, is the initiatory step in salva- 
tion ; faith in Christ indicates our salvation : and as bap- 
tism with water was applied to these parties on their pro- 
fession of faith^ it is evident that baptism was adminis- 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 39 

tered to them, not only as an outward sign of their faith, 
but as a symbol of the Holy Spirit's work within them, 
that work which gave rise to their faith. 

Robert. — Brother James, your explanation of these 
incidents is clear and satisfactory. I had never exam- 
ined these baptisms closely, and, consequently, had not 
reasoned out their symbolic character. But I am perfectly 
satisfied your reasoning is correct. At all events, I am 
unable to controvert it. The next baptism is that of the 
eunuch, and is recorded in this same 8th chapter of the 
Acts. I am anxious to hear what you will do with that. 
I think you will have some trouble in shutting immersion 
out of that baptism. 

James. — Brother Robert^ I am not going to try to 
shut immersion out of that case, for immersion is not be- 
fore us just now. We are trying to find out, if we can, 
what Christian baptism was intended to represent; and 
we are examining the Scriptures to that end. In the case 
of the eunuch, quite a number of verses should be read 
in order to get a full and comprehensive view of the in- 
cident. But there is a short and pretty clear statement 
made in the 36th, 37th and 38th verses, which you will 
please read. 

Robert. — "And as they went on their way, they came 
to a certain water; and the eunuch saith. See here is 
water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip 
said^ If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. 
And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is 
the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand 
stfll; and they both went down into the water, both 
Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him." 

James. — Now, Brother Robert, what do you think of 
this baptism — on what did it hinge? 

Robert. — Evidently it hinged on a profession of faith 



40 BAPTISM. 

by the eunuch. I do not think there is any doubt as to 
that. The eunuch asks the question: "Is there any rea- 
son why I should not be baptized?" PhiHp replies: 
"There is not, if thou believest with all thine heart." 
Then the eunuch said : 'T believe that Jesus Christ is the 
Son of God." It is very clear that the baptism of the 
eunuch was suspended on his faith, or his profession of 
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. 

James. — Brother Robert, I think you have brought out 
the truth in this case; and from your own reasoning you 
make the baptism of the eunuch dependent upon his pro- 
fession of faith, and, consequently, a symbol of the bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost. 

Robert. — I don't see that just so clearly. I see that 
baptism was suspended upon a profession of faith; but 
I do not see that the water was a S3'mbol of the Holy 
Spirit's work. 

James. — ^^Well, let us reason a little upon this case. If 
you turn to the ist Epistle of John iv. 15, you will see 
that: "Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son 
of God, God dwelleth in him;" and, again, in ist John 
V. I : "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is 
born of God." Now, if we carr}^ these passages to the 
case of the eunuch, we will see how it will pan out. The 
eunuch asked the question, "Is there any reason why I 
should not be baptized?" Philip replied: "There is not, 
if you believe that Jesus is the Son of God." Xow, John 
informs us that no one can truly believe that Jesus is the 
Son of God, but those upon whom the Holy Spirit per- 
forms his work of regeneration. Hence, you perceive that 
the baptism of the eunuch really hinged on the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost ; and Philip is to be assured of the Holy 
Spirit's work in the eunuch, by his profession of faith. 
So that the baptism in this case was a sign of faith, and a 
symbol of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 41 

Robert. — Brother James, your explanation is very 
clear and entirely satisfactory; although I must say that 
the baptisms thus far examined make great inroads on 
my theory of baptism. 

James^ — The next baptism recorded is that of Saul, or 
Paul, and is found in Acts ix. 17, 18. Please read, 
Brother Robert. 

Robert. — "And Ananias went his way, and entered 
into the house; and putting his hands on him, said. 
Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto 
thee in the way as thou camest hath sent me, that thou 
mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy 
Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it 
had been scales; and he received sight forthwith, and 
arose, and was baptized." 

James. — Now, what do you think of this baptism. 
Brother Robert; what was it intended to represent? 

Robert. — Well, Brother James, this is not so clear to 
me as some of the other cases we have examined. Still, 
the baptism of Saul is so intimately connected with the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost, that it is hard not to make the 
one a symbol of the other. Saul had shown his faith by 
a willingness to do whatever the Lord commanded him. 
Evidently the man was "born again" where he met the 
Lord on the road, but until the time that Ananias went to 
him had had no opportunity to be baptized. As his bap- 
tism so closely follows his filling by the Holy Ghost, I 
would be afraid to say that it was not a sign, or symbol 
of the work of the Holy Ghost. 

James. — I think you have brought out the truth in 
this case. Brother Robert. The only fault I find in you 
is your timidity in expressing your convictions. The next 
baptism recorded is in Acts x. 44-48. Please read. 

Robert. — "While Peter yet spake these words, the 



42 BAPTISM. 

Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word. And 
they of the circumcision which beheved were astonished, 
as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles 
also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost ; For they 
heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then 
answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these 
should not be baptized, which have received the Holy 
Ghost as well as we. And he commanded them to be bap- 
tized in the name of the Lord." 

James. — What do you think of these baptisms. Brother 
Robert ; what do you think the water represented in these 
cases ? 

Robert. — There is no room for doubt in this instance. 
The evidence is so very clear as to the representative char- 
acter of the water in these baptisms, that one must shut 
his eyes not to see it. It is so closely allied to the work 
of the Holy Ghost, and Peter so closely and clearly con- 
nects them that, to make the water baptism anything else 
than a symbol of the Spirit's work, would be a wilful 
distortion of the meaning of language. 

James. — I quite agree with you, Brother Robert. We 
will therefore pass on to the next baptism. You will find 
it in Acts xvi. 14, 15. Please read. 

Robert. — ''And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller 
of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, 
heard us : whose heart the Lord opened, that she at- 
tended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And 
when she was baptized, and her household, she besought 
us, saying, if ye have judged me faithful to the Lord, 
come into my house, and abide there." 

James. — You notice, Brother Robert, that this baptism, 
like the others, is connected with the work of the Holy 
Ghost. It was after the opening of the heart that Lydia 
was baptized. The opening of the heart is always spoken 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 43 

of in the Scriptures as the work of the Holy Ghost. Evi- 
dently the baptism in Lydia's case was the outward sign 
of the inward work upon the heart — that work which is 
called the baptism of the Holy Ghost, or the second birth. 
There is another baptism recorded in this i6th chapter of 
Acts. Let us examine it. Read from the 28th to the 34th 
verses inclusive. 

Robert. — *'But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, 
do thyself no harm ; for we are all here. Then he called 
for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell 
down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out and 
said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, 
believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, 
and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of 
the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took 
them the same hour of the night, and washed their 
stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his straightway." 

James. — Now, what do you think of this baptism. 
Brother Robert? 

Robert. — Well, it was after the preaching of the word 
of the Lord, and after they were exhorted to believe, they 
were baptized. I suppose the jailer and those with him 
had professed faith in the Lord, whom Paul preached. 

James. — You are very nearly correct in your conclu- 
sion. Brother Robert. The only fault is you go a little 
too far. We cannot be too careful in handling the Word 
of God. 

Robert. — I do not see the point you are trying to 
make. Brother James. I do not think I have gone too far. 
Show me what you mean. 

James. — Well, Brother Robert, what I refer to may 
seem trifling to you, and to some of your Baptist friends, 
but there is a great deal wrapped up in it. You say "you 
suppose that the jailer and those with him had professed 



44 BAPTISM. 

faith in the Lord whom Paul preached." Now, what I 
object to is your statement that "those with the jailer 
made a profession of faith." The Bible does not say that 
the jailer's household made a profession of faith. We had 
better stick to the Bible. 

Robert. — Well, Brother James, I see the point you 
maSe, but cannot see that it amounts to much. 

James. — It amounts to a good deal, brother, because 
it teaches that some parties were baptized who did not 
make a profession of faith. Do you catch on ? 

Robert. — ^I understand what you say very well, but 
do not see any force in it. 

James. — My principal object was to get you to confine 
yourself to Scripture language, at least not to draw con- 
clusions that the Scriptures do not warrant. You Bap- 
tists say that none should be baptized but those who make 
a profession of faith. Now, this Scripture teaches that 
some were baptized who did not make a profession. But 
we are wandering from the matter before us. We are 
trying to find out what baptism was intended to represent. 
In this case the baptism was administered as a sign of 
the work of the Holy Ghost in those who professed faith' 
in Christ. The next baptism recorded is in Acts xviii. 8. 
I will read it. *^And Crispus, the chief ruler of the syna- 
gogue, believed on the Lord with all his house ; and many 
of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." 
You see that these baptisms are also connected with the 
work of the Holy Ghost. 

Robert. — I do not see that so clearly as you appear to 
do. They were baptized after making a profession of 
faith. One thing I do see, and that is, that all the passages 
of Scripture yet examined are very much against your 
doctrine as to the baptism of infants — infants cannot 
make a profession, and therefore should not be baptized. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 45 

James. — Brother Robert, will you please let your mind 
revert to the baptisms of the jailer's household. Are we 
not taught there that some were baptized who did not 
make a profession of faith? Are you prepared to prove 
that there were no infants in that household? We are 
informed also, that Lydia's household was baptized, and 
yet there is no record that any one made a profession of 
faith but LyHia. Are you prepared to prove that there 
were no infants, or little children in Lydia's household? 
Now, these instances of baptism clearly prove that some 
were baptized who did not make a profession of faith. 
And until you can prove there were no infants or children 
in these households, I think fear of getting beyond the 
truth should withhold you from condemning infant bap- 
tism. But if your doctrine against infant baptism is a 
source of any pleasure to you, you can retain it just as 
long as you please. Only bear in mind that the object 
before us at the present time is not infant baptism, neither 
is it immersion, but what water baptism was intended to 
represent. Immersion has taken such a hold upon you 
Baptists that anything which appears to lend even the 
shadow of proof to any of your doctrines, is seized upon 
with avidity, and used even to abuse. I think if the 
thing was sifted out closely, your opposition to infant 
baptism would be found to rest, not so much on Scrip- 
tural grounds, as the danger to infants through immer- 
sion — death through strangulation would probably ensue. 
I believe this is a stronger argument against infant im- 
mersion — or baptism as you call it^ than anything you 
can find in the Bible. But as I before remarked, this is 
not the question before us just now. The next baptism 
recorded is in Acts xix. 5. Please read from the ist to 
the 5th verses. 

Robert. — "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos 



46 BAPTISM. 

was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper 
coasts, came to Ephesus ; and finding certain disciples, he 
said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since 
ye believed ? And they said unto him. We have not so 
much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And 
he said unto them: Unto what, then, were ye baptized? 
And they said. Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, 
John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, say- 
ing unto the people, that they should believe on him 
which should tome after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 
When they heard this they were baptized in the name 
of the Lord Jesus." 

James. — Now, Brother Robert, tell me what you think 
of these baptisms. 

Robert. — Well, Brother James, I scarcely know what 
to think. My mind staggers as never before in reading 
this Scripture. New thoughts come to me. The idea 
presents itself without any effort of the mind, that John's 
baptism was not Christian baptism, or Paul would not 
have baptized these believers over again. 

James. — You think, then, that Paul re-baptized these 
believers ? 

Robert. — il do not think there is any room for doubt 
on that point. The Scriptures are so plain that I would 
have to do an injury to my mind and conscience to deny 
it. These baptisms place an instrument in your hands 
that cuts at the very root of John's baptism — whatever it's 
mode — as an argument either for or against any mode oi 
Christian baptism. My own self-respect leads me to ad- 
mit that these believers were baptized over again. 

James. — Brother Robert, I admire your moral honesty 
and uprightness of mind, and whatever may be the out- 
come of our present investigation of the Word, I shall es- 
teem you more highly than ever before. And I assure you 



■ ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 47 

that, should the occasion arise during our examination 
of the Scriptures, if I find that their teaching runs coun- 
ter to any of my pre-conceived opinions^ I shall try to 
yield to the Bible as gracefully as you have done. There 
is no doubt in your mind, then, about these believers be- 
ing re-baptized by Paul? 

Robert. — Not any at all. The Scriptures are plain 
enough on that point. Paul met certain believers at 
Ephesus who had heard John preach, and who had been 
baptized by him. They had, perhaps, seen Jesus when he 
came to John for baptism, and heard him say, "Behold the 
Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." 
They may have heard Jesus himself preach before leaving 
Judea for Asia Minor. But evidently they had left Judea 
before the day of Pentecost. Paul enquires as to their 
Christian experience and asks them ''if they had received 
the Holy Ghost since they believed?" No douFt, having 
reference to the extraordinary powers conferred "by Eim 
on many disciples. On acknowledging their ignorance of 
the existence of the Holy Ghost, Paul expresses astonish- 
ment, as shown in the question he asks, "Unto what, then, 
were ye baptized?" They answered, "Unto John's bap- 
tism." Then Paul draws the distinction between John's 
and Christian baptism, which is administered in the 
name of the Holy Ghost. The fourth and fifth verses 
clearly show that these disciples were baptized over again. 
Paul says in the 4th verse, "John verily baptized unto re- 
pentance, saying unto the people, that they should be- 
lieve on him, which should come after him." The re- 
mainder of this verse is Paul's explanation as to the 
party to whom John referred as the one who was to come 
after him — ^that is, Jesus Christ. John never used these 
titles — iChrist Jesus — in all his preaching and baptizing. 
He did say the "Lamb of God," and he heard the Voice 



48 BAPTISM. 

say of Jesus, "this is my beloved Son." But he no where 
uses the titles, Christ Jesus, in all his ministrations. 

James. — Brother Robert, your explanation is clear and 
satisfactory, and just such an one as I would have given 
myself if called upon. But I was anxious to know how 
you would explain this incident, when your mind was 
free from any bias that might be made on it by others. 
These baptisms also, then, had reference to the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost. I suppose you are aware that your 
deductions are directly contrary to those of your favorite 
writer. Rev. Gustavus F. Davis, in his pamphlet. No. 138, 
published by the American Baptist Publication Society. 
On page 5 of that pamphlet he explains this incident in 
this way : "John verily baptized with the baptism of re- 
pentance;, saying unto the people that they should believe 
on him which should come after him, that is, on Jesus 
Christ. When they (i. e., the people to whom John 
preached) heard this, they were baptized in the name of 
Jesus." You observe that, according to Mr. Davis, it was 
not the people to whom Paul was speaking, that were 
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, but the people to 
whom John spoke. 

Robert. — Brother James, I have, at my home, the pam- 
phlet you refer to, written by Brother Davis, and, of 
course, have read it, and have always considered it a 
strong argument in favor of immersion. Of course, I 
have read his explanation of the baptisms now before us, 
and accepted of that explanation as the true one ; but I did 
not read the Bible in connection with his explanation. I 
am ashamed and sorry for both Brother Davis and myself. 
For him, because he exposes his lack of mental grasp by 
inability to perceive the grammatical construction of that 
portion of Scripture, and weakens the cause of immersion 
by displaying duplicity. For myself, because I was will- 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 49 

ing, without thinking for myself, to accept of anything 
from a Baptist preacher on the subject of immersion that 
seemed to strengthen the doctrine. 

James. — (Well, let us leave Mr. Davis to settle the mat- 
ter with his own conscience, and return to the study of the 
Word. The next mention of baptism is in Acts xxii. 16. 
You perceive, that Paul is here making his defence, and, 
in relating the circumstances of his conversion, mentions 
his baptism by Ananias. We have already had this bap- 
tism under consideration, so we. may pass on to another. 
The next mention of baptism is in Romans vi. 3, 4. Please 
read these Scriptures, Brother Robert. 

Robert. — ''Know ye not that so many of us as were 
baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 
Therefore, we are buried with him by baptism into death ; 
that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory 
of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of 
life." Now, Brother James, I don't think you can get 
around this Scripture. This teaches immersion so clearly 
that it lifts the question out of controversy — "Buried with 
him by baptism." Is not that clear enough? 

James. — Brother Robert, I have no desire whatever to 
"get around Scripture." I am alone anxious to find out 
what the Scriptures teach. If I can get that clearly, I tell 
you candidly, I shall relinquish all pre-conceived opinions 
on the subject of baptism should the Bible run counter to 
them. By God's grace I will follow the Bible wherever 
it leads. But, please do not let your zeal outrun your good 
sense. You perceive that the word baptism, in this place, 
is used in connection with the death of Christ, and not his 
burial and resurrection. There is not a word said about 
his burial. Now, as we are trying to find out what bap- 
tism was intended to represent, and, as it is used here in 
connection with Christ's death, and not his burial and 



50 BAPTISM. 

resurrection, it has no bearing on the subject before us, 
so we may pass on. I think we shall have this Scripture 
before us again before we conclude our examination, and 
we shall then try to find out just what it does teach. I 
have observed a wonderful similarity of procedure among 
you immersers when discussing the subject of baptism. I 
do not mean to give you offense, but I must say that you 
all expose a shallowness of mind — a lack of logical acumen 
and force, when speaking upon the subject of baptism. 
Your imagination is so lively that you mistake a shadow 
for a fact; you substitute affirmations for facts, and 
reiteration for logic. I have never heard or read a good, 
sound, logical argument from a Baptist minister or lay- 
man on the subject of baptism. But let us go back to our 
investigation. The next place in which baptism is men- 
tioned is in 1st Corinthians i. 12-17. Please read, Brother 
Robert, and tell me what you think of this baptism. 

Robert. — ''Now, this I say, that every one of you saith, 
I am of Paul ; and I of Apollos ; and I of Cephas ; and I of 
Christ. Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? 
or were you baptized in the name of Paul ? I thank God 
that I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gains. Lest 
any should say I baptized in my own name." Paul is here 
referring to the baptism of these parties which had been 
administered to them sometime before. This teaches 
nothing, so we may pass on. 

James. — You are correct, Brother Robert. The next 
baptism mentioned is in ist Cor. x. 2. Please read. 

Robert. — "And were all baptized unto Moses in the 
cloud and in the sea." Evidently there is no reference 
here either to the baptism of the Holy Ghost, or the burial 
and resurrection of Christ. 

James. — Just so. Pass to the next place where bap- 
tism is mentioned, and read it; ist Cor. xii. 13. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 51 

Robert. — 'Tor by one Spirit we are all baptized into 
one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be 
bond or free." Evidently the Apostle is here speaking of 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 

James. — You are correct. Brother Robert. You have 
noticed, no doubt, how frequently the Apostle speaks of 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the emphasis he places 
upon it. The next place in which baptism is mentioned 
is in 1st Cor. xv. 29, and has reference apparently to a 
custom of baptizing a living person for a dead one. As it 
throws no light on Scripture baptism, we may pass on. 
The next reference to baptism is in Gal. iii. 27. Please 
read and tell me what you think of it. 

Robert. — 'Tor as many of you as have been baptized 
into Christ, have put on Christ." This evidently has ref- 
erence to that baptism of the Holy Ghost by which we are 
united to Christ. 

James. — Your views of this passage agree with my 
own. Brother Robert. The next mention of baptism is in 
Eph. iv. 5. Please read and give me your views of that 
passage. 

Robert. — "There is one body, and one Spirit, even as 
ye are called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one 
faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is 
above all, and through all, and in you all." This portion 
of Scripture is a strong argument in favor of the Bap- 
tist's position, that is, that there is only one mode of bap- 
tism, and as that is immersion, only immersion can be 
right. 

James. — Brother Robert, no doubt your language 
sounds well to your own ears, as it would in the ears of 
all your Baptist brethren, could they hear it. One of the 
difficulties one has to meet in discussing baptism with a 
Baptist is — holding him to the point. In your case, I can 



52 BAPTISM. 

scarcely find an excuse for you. I have so frequently had 
occasion to call your attention to the matter directly before 
us, that, it seems to me, it should so have impressed itself 
upon your mind as to prevent your leaving it. We are 
not now discussing a mode of baptism; and as to your 
conclusion that immersion alone is baptism, permit me to 
say that that is the very point in controversy. That is 
the thing to be proved, and right here I might say that 
I could very easily place you in what you might find to 
be a very embarrassing position, a position which you and 
other Baptists are careful not to assume. That is to prove 
that immersion is Scripture baptism. You forget that the 
burden of proof lies with those who afiirm a proposition, 
and not with those who deny its truth. You Baptists 
affirm that immersion alone is Christian baptism, and lay 
it upon Pedobaptists to prove that it is not; and we have 
always taken up the burden and carried it, I believe, with 
a good deal of ease. But this plan should be reversed, and 
3^ou should be called upon to prove your proposition true. 
This, I am inclined to think, you would find rather diffi- 
cult. It was to relieve you of this burden that I suggested 
the plan agreed upon in our discussion on baptism. And 
I again call your attention to the fact that we are not now 
seeking for a mode of baptism. It is very evident to one 
with an unjaundiced mind, that the baptism referred to in 
Eph. iv. 5, can be none other than the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost, which unites all with Christ, and which 
brings all who experience it into the spiritual kingdom of 
our Lord. The next mention of baptism is in Col. ii. 12. 
Please read it, Brother Robert. 

Robert. — ''Buried with him in baptism, wherein also 
ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of 
God, who hath raised him from the dead." I think. Broth- 
er James, you can scarcely avoid immersion in this 
baptism — "buried with him," you see. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 53 

James. — My good brother, I am not trying to avoid 
anything. I am trying to find out what the Bible teaches 
on baptism. In the passage before us, I see we are buried 
with Christ in a baptism of some kind. I think you will 
have noticed that this is the 'first place where baptism is 
mentioned in connection with burial, even remotely, and 
I assure you it is the last place. We will look into this 
Scripture more closely later on. The next place in which 
baptism is mentioned is in Heb. vi. 2. Read it, Brother 
Robert. 

Robert. — "Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying 
on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead^ and of eter- 
nal judgment." 

James. — You notice that the word is in the plural num- 
ber here — ^"baptisms." How does that tally with your 
doctrine of one baptism — immersion — Brother Robert? 
Evidently the Jews called more than one thing by the 
name of baptism. I think that, from the preceding por- 
tion of this Epistle, the Apostle is referring here to the 
different applications of water by the Jews in washings 
for purification. The next mention of baptism is in ist 
Peter iii. 21. Please read. 

Robert. — ''The like figure whereunto even baptism 
doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth 
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward 
God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 

James. — Now, here we find the words "baptism" and 
"resurrection" mentioned in the same verse, but certainly 
not in the way of one representing the other. 

Robert. — No, Brother James ; in reading this portion 
of Scripture I would never imagine that the Holy Spirit 
meant that baptism represented the resurrection of Christ. 

James. — Now, my brother, we have had before us all 
the passages of the New Testament in which the word 



54 BAPTISM. 

baptism occurs, in the way of an original statement. There 
are other places where baptism is mentioned, but they are 
only repetitions of the passages we have examined. We 
have had before us twenty-three passages, and only in one 
of them is baptism mentioned with the burial of Christ, 
and that only in a very remote way ; and in o}ie verse bap- 
tism is mentioned with resurrection ; and nez'er at all is 
baptism mentioned with both the burial and resurrection 
of Christ. Twenty-one times baptism is mentioned with 
faith and the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and that in such 
a way as to indicate clearly that water baptism was in- 
tended to represent the baptism of the Holy Ghost. Now, 
if preponderance of evidence is any assurance of truth, 
the truth is certainly on the side of the position that 
Christian baptism was intended to represent the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost. There are twenty-one to one in its 
favor. It is a notable fact that there is not one passage 
in the whole New Testament that would evoke the idea, 
that baptism was intended to represent the burial and 
resurrection of Christ. 

Robert. — Brother James, you have presented this mat- 
ter to me in a new light. I had never thought to search 
the Scriptures to find out what our Lord intended that 
baptism should represent. I have always heard, and 
never imagined anything to the contrary, that baptism 
rf^presented the burial and resurrection of Christ ; but with 
these Scriptures staring me in the face, I cannot but 
admit that our position is wrong and that you are right. 

James. — Brother Robert, I do not see that the yielding 
of this point will injure your cause to any great extent. 
If Christian baptism by immersion rests upon nothing 
stronger than that it represents the burial and resurrection 
of our Lord, it certainly rests upon a weak foundation. 
Now, as these twentv-one witnesses of the Bible show 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 55 

that baptism was intended to represent the baptism of 
the Holy Ghost, all that is necessary to do in order to 
know how to administer it, is to find out the mode of the 
Spirit in his work. 

Robert. — You certainly are correct in that, Brother 
James. If Christian baptism is a symbol, the mode of 
administration must bear some resemblance to the thing 
symbolized. If Christian baptism symbolizes the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost we must find out, if we can, how the 
Holy Ghost baptizes. If we can find the mode of his 
operations, then Christian baptism must be performed in 
the way that will best represent that. 

James. — Just so. Brother Robert. But before pro- 
ceeding to examine the Scriptures as to the mode of the 
Spirit in his work, 1 call your attention to a principle in 
connection with immersion that seems to me to be in con- 
flict with your doctrine of baptism. I presume you can 
reconcile the matter and make it clear to me. All Baptists, 
so far as I know, before proceeding to immerse, endeavor 
to ascertain whether the subject for immersion has been 
the object of the Holy Spirit's operations in regenera- 
tion — all have to make a profession of faith in the Lord 
Jesus. If it is found that the person applying for im- 
mersion has not been regenerated, or that the profession 
of faith is not satisfactory, immersion is denied him. Is 
this so? 

Robert. — Certainly, Brother James; all have to make 
a profession of faith. This is in harmony with the Scrip- 
tures. 

James. — I am not talking about the Scriptures now, 
but about the practice of the Baptist Church; although, 
by the way, it is not in harmony with the Scriptures, for 
we found that in the households of the jailer and Lydia 
some were baptized who did not make a profession of 



56 BAPTISM. 

faith. From what you say^ then, immersion, or what you 
call baptism, hinges on a profession of faith. This being 
true, it logically follows that this profession of faith, 
upon which immersion hinges, connects it with the work 
of the Holy Spirit ; because it is the Holy Spirit that gives 
rise to faith as a saving grace. The principle involved 
in this is at variance with the doctrine that baptism repre- 
sents the burial and resurrection of Christ. If it is true 
that one cannot experience the saving power of Christ 
except through the Holy Spirit's work in regeneration, 
and if immersion is suspended upon an expression of this 
experience, it would seem more conformable with the 
operations of the mind to connect immersion with the 
work of the Holy Spirit, rather than with the burial and 
resurrection of Christ. I can see no possible connection 
between faith and the burial and resurrection of Christ. 
Certainly the burial and resurrection of Christ do not 
produce faith — are not the ground of faith. When a 
person is relating his experience^ his mind is occupied 
with what he conceives brought about this new state of 
affairs within him, and which has induced him to seek 
what is called baptism ; but no one would imagine that 
the burial and resurrection of Christ gave rise to this ex- 
perience. Hence, the mind, in its natural operations, 
would connect that which is suspended upon Christian 
experience — which is immersion — with that which gave 
rise to this experience^ — which is the work of the Holy 
Ghost — and not the burial and resurrection of Christ. 
And so, I repeat, there is conflict between the principle 
involved and the doctrine of immersion. If immersion is 
suspended upon a profession of faith, and this profession 
suspended upon the work of the Holy Ghost, one cannot 
help connecting in his mind, if he thinks at all, his bap- 
tism with the Spirit's work. In the case of immersion. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 57 

then, you see that an outward act — Immersion — will not 
be performed until the assurance is given that the Holy 
Ghost has accomplished an inward work — regeneration. 
And yet that outward act — iimmersion — has no reference 
whatever to the inward work of the Holy Spirit, upon 
which it hinges. The hiatus between a profession of 
faith, upon which immersion is suspended, and the burial 
and resurrection of Christ, is too great for the ordinary 
mind to bridge and bring them into such relation as is 
said to exist between baptism and the burial and resur- 
rection of Christ. 

Robert. — My dear Brother James, I listen in amaze- 
ment to what you say. I had never thought upon these 
things, but I recognize the inconsistency of our doctrine 
and practice. I feel that you are tearing the foundations 
from under me, and wonder that I had not given this 
matter more thought. I am afraid that many of my 
fellow church members are resting, like myself, on im- 
pressions made by the often-repeated statements of our 
preachers. 

James. — Do not be alarmed, my dear brother. If I 
have to remove your foundations, I promise to do it 
kindly, and will only remove a little at a time, so as not 
to shock your sensibilities. But to return to our work. 
We are now to search the Scriptures to see how the Holy 
Ghost performs his baptism. But it is getting late, and 
we had better defer this until to-morrow night, if you can 
come. 

Robert. — ^Very well, Brother James, we will part for 
the night, but I will be with you again as early as possible 
to-morrow night. I am looking forward with great interest 
to the result of our Bible study. You make your ex- 
planations so clear, and yet so simple, that I am ashamed I 
have not given more earnest study to the Word of God. 
Good-night. 



58 BAPTISM. 

On the following evening Robert presented himself as 
before, and was shown to the apartment in which they 
studied, and found his friend already seated there. 

James. — Good evening, Brother Robert. We are now 
to search the Scriptures for the mode of the Holy Spirit 
in his baptism. The first miraculous manifestation of the 
Holy Ghost after the ascension of our Lord, is on the day 
of Pentecost. This evidently is that baptism of the Holy 
Ghost of which John the Baptist prophesied, and which 
the Saviour said would endue his Apostles with power 
from on high. This baptism gave rise to a wonderful 
deal of curiosity and excitement, and the people crowded 
together to inquire about it. There were differences of 
opinion as to its cause ; some attributed it to one thing, and 
some to another. Some said they w^ere intoxicated with 
wine, while others denied this on the ground that wine 
did not give the ability to speak in different languages. 
Peter embraces the opportunity and the occasion to preach 
Jesus to them, and to explain the whole matter. He said : 
"This is the fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel." Please 
read Joel ii. 28, 29, Brother Robert. 

Robert. — 'Tt shall come to pass afterward, that I will 
pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and 
your daughters shall prophesy ; your old men shall dream 
dreams, your young men shall see visions. And also upon 
the servants and upon the handmaids in those days I will 
pour out my Spirit." 

James. — Now, Peter says this work of the Spirit is the 
fulfilment of that prophecy. The Spirit, then, was poured 
out, you perceive. But this work of the Spirit is called a 
baptism ; so that the mode of the Spirit in his baptism, in 
this instance, is pouring. Another instance of the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost is recorded in Acts x. 44, 45. Please 
read. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 59 

Robert. — "While Peter yet spake these words, the 
Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the Word, and 
they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, 
as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles 
also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

James. — ^Now, Peter calls this the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost in the nth chapter of Acts, 15th and i6th verses; 
and he there says the Holy Ghost "fell upon" the people. 
So that the expressions "poured out" and "fell upon" 
mean the same thing. The fact is, Brother Robert, that 
all through the Word of God, where reference is made 
to the work of the Holy Spirit, he is spoken of as "coming 
upon," "falling on," being "poured out," or "poured 
upon," as in Isaiah xxxii. 15: "Till the Spirit be poured 
upon us." Isaiah xliv. 3 : "I will pour my Spirit upon thy 
seed." Ezek. xxxix. 29: "For I have poured my Spirit 
upon the house of Israel." Joel ii. 28: "I will pour out 
my Spirit." In all cases the Spirit is spoken of as coming 
upon the object of divine grace. Now, we find from the 
Word of God that the mode of the Spirit in his operations, 
and which is called his baptism, is by "falling upon," 
"coming upon," or being "poured upon;" and, as water 
baptism, as we have found, is a symbol of the Holy 
Spirit's baptism, in order to be rightly administered, must 
come upon, or be poured upon or sprinkled on the subject, 
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost. 

Robert. — Brother James, you have done away with 
immersion in short order — swept me off my feet, in fact ; 
and yet, if there is anything wrong with your exposition 
and reasoning, I have failed to perceive it. Assuredly, the 
Scriptures we have examined sustain you at every step. 

James. — Brother Robert, you will have perceived that 
no effort has been made to strain Scripture, or give to its 



6o BAPTISM. 

language a foreign sense — it has been taken in its plain 
and obvious meaning. Indeed, the interpretation of the 
AA'ord has been largely with yourself, and the result thus 
far has been, that the Scriptures teach baptism was in- 
tended to represent or symbolize the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost, and hence the mode, to be in accord with the bap- 
tism it represents, must be b}^ pouring or sprinkling — the 
water coming upon the subject. 

Robert. — Brother James, I cannot but admit the cor- 
i'ectness of all you have said, for the Bible sustains you. 
But I am astonished that your method of dealing '\vith 
the subject — which certainly is the most sensible and 
correct — has never presented itself to my mind before. 

James. — There is scarcely any room for astonishment, 
Brother Robert ; my plan was yours also, you know. I 
think the real difficulty in your case is — you have really 
never given the subject any thought at all. You have 
heard again and again that nothing is Christian baptism 
but immersion, and the thing has been so often repeated 
that it has fixed itself upon your mind without any effort 
of your own, and a few passages of Scripture have been 
quoted which you have been told teach immersion, and 
which, to a casual observer, appear to do so. But you 
have never gone to the Scriptures to find out whether 
immersion is really taught there. In other words, 5'ou 
have never gone to the Bible with a doubt in your mind 
as to the truth of the doctrine of immersion, and conse- 
quently, could never see anything against it. 

Robert. — -Brother James, I admit, with shame to my- 
self — and, I fear most of our people are like me — ^that I 
have never really given the subject any deep thought. I 
have allowed others to do my thinking for me, and, as you 
remarked, with a few casual glances at a few Scripture 
passages, I have rested satisfied that I was well fortified 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 6i 

on the subject of baptism. This was why I courted this 
discussion, for I believed I could soon show you your 
error. Still, I would Hke to hear how you will explain 
those passages which are quoted in favor of immersion, 
and which still appear to me to contain that idea. 

James. — All in good time, my brother. We Presby- 
terians are a slow-moving people. We like to get at the 
bottom of things, and to get a reason for things. Now, 
there are some things connected with your doctrine, that 
baptism represents the burial and resurrection of Christ, 
that appears absurd to us, if nothing worse. For instance, 
we cannot see how one can, with the Word of God in his 
hand, teach that Christian baptism was intended to repre- 
sent the burial and resurrection of Christ, when there is 
not one passage in the whole New Testament that brings 
them into even proximate relation, not one passage that 
speaks of the burial and resurrection as a baptism. Now, 
as the burial and resurrection are no where called a bap- 
tism, it seems somewhat incongruous to call that a baptism 
which represents these things. But there is a worse 
feature than this connected with the doctrine, and we 
have wondered that Baptists — who are generally so sound 
in doctrine — have not discovered it. Of course, you see 
at once that the burial and resurrection of Christ are two 
and very distinct things ; and that they were performed 
by two and very distinct parties ; and they bear no neces- 
sary relation the one to the other. The burial bears no 
relation whatever to the resurrection, nor the resurrection 
to the burial. In immersion, the two acts — putting into 
the water and taking out of the water — ^^are so dependent 
the one upon the other, that the thing would not be com- 
plete in the absence of either. In order to take one out 
of the water he must first be in it. But such relation and 
dependence does not exist in the case of Christ's burial 



62 BAPTISM. 

and resurrection. In immersion the taking out of the 
water depends upon the putting into the water ; but surely 
it will not be contended that the resurrection of Christ 
depended upon his burial. Resurrection means resuming 
or coming to life again; and certainly Christ would have 
come to life again had they left his body hanging upon 
the cross. Every one knows that the resumption of life 
does not depend upon burial. If it did, there would bt 
millions of the sons of Adam who would never be resur- 
rected, for there are countless thousands of them who 
have never been buried. 

Robert. — I had never thought upon the point you have 
just presented. I can see very well there is no resemblance 
in fact between immersion and the burial and resurrection 
of Christ. I think it very unfortunate that our church 
has ever taught the doctrine, that baptism represents the 
burial and resurrection. 

James. — To my mind, Brother Robert, there is another 
feature attaching to your doctrine still more repulsive 
than any yet mentioned. You are aware that the burial 
and resurrection of Christ are two distinct and separate 
things, and were performed by two distinct parties. The 
burial was the act of men; the resurrection was the act 
of God; so that^ if immersion represents the burial and 
resurrection of Christ, we have a divine ordinance in the 
Christian Church to represent the work of men, and at the 
same time the act of God. This is something unique — 
there is nothing like it again in the whole Word of God. 
It stands alone in the great w^ork of redemption, in its 
execution and application. Any one who reads the Bible 
with the least degree of care, will see that man is never 
regarded as an active agent in the great plan of redemp- 
tion, either in its execution or application. He is the 
object of it, and that is all. I have yet to read in the 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 63 

Scriptures where God has, at any time, instituted a sacra- 
ment, set up an ordinance in his Church to represent 
man's work in salvation. Such an act of God would be 
a recognition of man's efficient agency in his own salva- 
tion, and would be a direct contradiction of the whole 
teaching of the Bible. The doctrine that Christian bap- 
tism was intended to represent the burial and resurrection 
of Christ is so repugnant to the Word of God, that it is 
strange any one is found to advocate it. There is nothing 
in the great plan of human redemption, either in its de- 
sign, execution or application, that depends upon the 
burial of Christ. It does nothing, and represents nothing, 
and nothing depends upon it. It was simply a kind and 
loving act of friends, and was in strong contrast to the 
act that preceded it — ithe crucifixion. But it affected 
nothing, either as to Christ or salvation. It was the act of 
men only. He who reads the Word of God with any de- 
gree of care, will see at once that, where it treats of 
salvation at all, its whole effort is directed to turn men's 
minds away from themselves and from their fellowmen, 
and fix them upon God and his Son, Jesus Christ. And in 
the face of all this, to think and to teach that Christ in- 
stituted a sacrament in his Church, set up an ordinance 
that was to continue for all time, to represent and com- 
memorate an act of men, and which, in the very nature of 
the case, would turn men's minds away from the true 
source of spiritual strength to this act as a substitute, is 
something so repugnant to the Word of God and the fit- 
ness of things, that it would require a clear cut, concise 
an^ positive, ''thus saith the Lord," to induce one to 
believe it. 

Robert. — Brother James, I can only repeat that, it is 
very unfortunate that our Church has ever taught the 
doctrine that Christian baptism was intended to represent 



64 BAPTISM. 

the burial and resurrection of Christ. It is plain that that 
contention must be given up. But I feel convinced that 
this cannot be the only thing on which my Church bases 
immersion. Our Church is too large and too respectably 
mtellectual to differentiate itself on a doctrine based on 
so insecure a foundation as that the sacrament of baptism 
was intended to represent the burial of Christ. Indeed, I 
see clearly now that this doctrine contradicts our whole 
system of theology ; for we do not believe in any efficiency 
of man in his own salvation. But as I have just said, 
there must be something else upon which my Church 
bases its doctrine of immersion ; and that must be on the 
meaning of the original Greek word for baptism, and on 
the Word of God itself. 

James. — Very well, Brother Robert, we will now turn 
our attention to those portions of Scripture in which bap- 
tism' is mentioned, and see whether they directly specify a 
mode of baptism, or whether a mode can be logically 
deduced from them. Let us do this just as we have 
been looking into the Scriptures up to this time, not as 
scholars, but prayerfully and as business men, and men 
of common sense. Permit me to observe, that, already 
it has been shown, on the authority of my minister, and 
that of Liddell and Scott and a German Greek scholar, 
these three last, mark you, Greek, English and German 
Lexicographers, that the original word to which baptism 
is given as the English form, does not always mean to 
immerse^ — that it means also ''to pour," ''to sprinkle/' "to 
dip." Bear in mind, also, that it has already been shown 
from the Scriptures, that Christian baptism was intended 
to represent, or symbolize the baptism of the Holy Ghost, 
and that the Holy Ghost baptizes by "coming upon," "fall- 
ing on," or being "poured upon" the subject of his opera- 
tions ; and, hence, in order to represent the baptism of the 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 65 

Holy Ghost, the water must come upon, fall on, or be 
poured upon the subject in Christian baptism. But now 
to the law and testimony. The first Scripture to be ex- 
amined is Matt. iii. 6. Please read. Brother Robert, and 
tell me what you think of it. 

Robert. — "And were baptized of him in Jordan, con- 
fessing their sins." Now, Brother James, my hopes 
revive^ for certainly this passage teaches immersion. You 
notice they were baptized in Jordan. Immersion here is 
plain enough. 

James. — Brother Robert, contain and restrain yourself 
a little. Do not let your hopes and your zeal run away 
with your good sense. Let us meditate on this a little. 
I know that immersers lay much stress on the word "in" 
here ; but, to my mind^, the word indicates nothing definite 
as to the mode of John's baptism. I called my pastor's 
attention to this word "in" here, and in other places, and 
he informed me that the Greek word of which "in" is 
given as the translation, means also "at," "on," or "by." 
You^ and others of your sect, claim that the word "in" 
certainly indicates immersion; but, to my mind, and any 
other un jaundiced mind, it does not, with certitude, so do. 
There is certainly a possibility of one going into water 
without going under it, in the sense of immersion. Now, 
unless it can be shown that into and under mean the same 
thing, it certainly cannot be shown that "in" and immer- 
sion mean the same thing. The fact is, that neither 
sprinklers nor immersers can find anything in the langu- 
age quoted to sustain their practice — the language con- 
tains nothing to indicate mode. The simple statement is, 
that "John baptized in Jordan." Conclusions, therefore, 
from this language are merely gratuitous. 

Robert. — Well, Brother James, I confess I was a little 
premature and sanguine in this case. But there is another 



66 BAPTISM. 

portion of Scripture in connection with John's baptism 
that certainly teaches he immersed. It is John iii. 23, and 
I will read it: "And John also was baptizing in Enon, 
near to Salem, because there was much water there." 
You know, it does not require much water to sprinkle or 
pour, and when we are told that John went to Enon, be- 
cause there was much water there, it is very evident he 
immersed, as, otherwise, he would not need much water. 
James. — Brother Robert, I have no doubt but what 
you say is very satisfactory to yourself and other immer- 
sers with you, but 3'^ou do not present the shadow of an 
argument. In the first place you go beyond what is written 
when you say John ''went there to baptize." The Bible 
does not say that. It simply says he was baptizing there 
when a certain other thing occurred, because there was 
much water there. Now, I think I can see a good reason 
why John should stop to preach at such places as had 
much water, and at those only. If the crowd listening to 
him at Enon was, in size, anything to be compared to that 
which went to him at Jordan, much water was needed. 
Where do ministers of the present day hold their camp 
meetings? Is it not where there is much water? Cer- 
tainly so. But why do they do this? Is it because the 
ministers themselves need much water in their work ? No, 
but because the people who attend need much water. Just 
because John stopped at a place where there was much 
water, one need not infer that he needed much for his 
work. But the crowd needed a great deal who went to 
listen to him, and I presume that the same impulse moved 
John that moves the ministers of the present day to seek 
a camping place where nature abundantly furnishes her 
refreshing fluid. But in the passage before us the ex- 
pression "much water" conveys no idea as to the depth 
of the water at Enon; and we know it requires consid- 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 67 

erable depth to immerse. But if you will look into that 
Bible dictionary on the shelf at your hand^ you will 
see that the word Enon itself gives us the meaning of the 
word "much." You notice that it means ''many springs." 
The name Enon was given to the place because there were 
many springs there, so that the word ''much" is but a 
repetition of the idea contained in the word Enon. My 
minister informs me that the original word which defines 
the water in the text is "polla," and means many — a poly- 
gon is a figure of many sides — Enon was a place of many 
springs. So that the expression "much water," or "many 
springs" does not necessarily convey the idea of immer- 
sion. You have not, but many of your people do ask the 
question, and that in the way of an argument, too : "Why 
did John go to Enon, where there was much water, if he 
did not go to immerse ?" It is hard to perceive the quality 
of an argument in this. It might be answered by asking 
another question equally argumentative : "If John was 
an immerser, why did he leave Jordan?" The one is 
about as good an argument as the other; but both ques- 
tions show a mind very much in need of something to lean 
upon ; they very much resemble a man grasping at a straw 
to save himself from drowning. There is nothing in the 
language that states the fact of John baptizing at either 
Enon or Jordan, that indicates the mode of his baptism ; 
and I would pass on from it, were it not for an incident 
that transpired at Enon, to which I call your attention, 
and which you immersers have failed apparently to notice. 

Robert. — (I did not notice anything particular in the 
third chapter of John but the fact that John was baptizing 
at Enon because there was much water there. 

James. — I did not think you noticed the incident to 
which I am about to call your attention. You immersers 
are not in the habit of noticing anything that does 



68 BAPTISM. 

not appear to strengthen your doctrine. How readily you 
caught on to the word "in" and to the expression "much 
water" in connection with John's preaching and baptizing 
at Jordan and Enon; but you did not notice, nor have I 
ever heard a Baptist allude to, the incident now before my 
mind. Please read John iii. 22, 23, 24, 25. 

Robert. — "And after these things came Jesus and his 
disciples into the land of Judea ; and there he tarried with 
them. And John also was baptizing at Enon, near to 
Salem, because there was much water there, and they 
came and were baptized. For John was not yet cast into 
prison. Then there arose a question between some of 
John's disciples and the Jews about purifying." Brother 
James, I can see nothing particularly striking in this 
Scripture beyond the fact of John baptizing. 

James. — Brother Robert, I did not expect that you 
would. Yet the Holy Spirit, through the Apostle John, 
is careful to bring to our notice an incident which you 
Baptists have never thought of sufficient importance to 
notice. The Holy Spirit tells us that a controversy or dis- 
cussion arose between John's disciples and the Jews about 
purifying. Notice that 25th verse. Now, would you be 
kind enough to tell me what you suppose gave rise to that 
discussion between the Jews and some of John's disciples 
on the sub j ect of purification ? 

Robert. — Why, Brother James, I had never thought 
about that discussion. But, looking the matter right 
straight in the face, I think it must have been something in 
John's baptism that gave rise to it. It was at the time 
John was baptizing in Enon the discussion on purification 
came up. 

James. — Just so. Brother Robert, but why do you ex- 
press yourself with such hesitancy, as though you were 
afraid of going too far, or of what was coming next ? It 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 69 

is very evident from the language before us that, what- 
ever idea John's disciples attached to his baptism, the 
Jews connected it with purification. And that it did have 
reference to purification is evident from the 3rd chapter 
of Matthew. He preached repentance and amendment of 
life, and baptized on the promise of this amendment. 
This amendment was legal in its character, and their con- 
fession of sins and submission to John's baptism indicated 
their readiness to accept the kingdom of heaven, which he 
proclaimed to be at hand. The baptism which John ad- 
ministered must therefore have been in line with his 
preaching. This is the only natural way to account for 
the discussion on purification, for it was his baptism that 
gave rise to it. 

Robert. — Brother James, I do not think there is any 
room for argument on the point you bring up. Evidently 
it was John's baptism that gave rise to the discussion. I 
do not know what use you are going to make of this, but 
I cannot suppress my own spontaneous judgment. I 
admit that it must have been John's baptism that gave 
rise to the discussion on purification. 

James. — Very well. Brother Robert, you have only 
acted in this case as you, or any other noble-minded man 
must act. It was John's baptism that brought the subject 
up, and this baptism must have been after the manner of 
Jewish purification. Now, if we can find the manner of 
Jewish purification, I think we shall have found the mode 
of John's baptism. Let us search for this. Please read 
Lev. viii. 10, ii ; Lev. xiv. 7, 51 ; Lev. xvi. 14; Num. viii. 
7; Num. xix. 18. 

Robert. — Lev. viii. 10, 11: ''And Moses took the an- 
ointing oil, and anointed the tabernacle, and all that 
was therein, and sanctified them. And he sprinkled there- 
of upon the altar seven times." Lev. xiv. 7, 51 : "And he 



70 BAPTISM. 

shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the 
leprosy seven times, and he shall pronounce him clean. 
And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hysop, and the 
scarlet, and the living bird^ and dip them in the blood of 
the slain bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle the 
house seven times." Lev. xvi. 14 : ''And he shall take of 
the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy 
seat eastward, and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle 
of the blood with his fingers seven times." Num. viii. 7: 
"And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them; 
sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them 
shave their flesh, and let them wash their clothes and so 
make themselves clean." Num. xix. 17, 18: ''And for 
an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt 
heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be 
put thereto in a vessel : and a clean person shall take the 
hysop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the 
tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that 
were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one 
dead, or a grave." Ezek. xxxvi. 25 : "Then will I sprinkle 
clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your 
filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." 

James. — Now, Brother Robert, from the passages of 
Scripture which you have read, what do you think waj* 
the mode of Jewish legal purification ? 

Robert. — Evidently the legal form of Jewish purifica- 
tion was by sprinkling. 

James. — i'Can you perceive any connection of idea be- 
tween this and John's baptism, taking into account the 
discussion between John's disciples and the Jews about 
purifying? 

Robert. — I see the point you make, Brother James, 
and admit it is a strong one. John's disciples and the 
other Jews discussed the subject of purification ; and this 
discussion evidently arose from John's baptism. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 71 

James. — Precisely so, Brother Robert, and you remem- 
ber that John baptized on confession of sins and promise 
of amendment of Ufe. What is meant by this amendment 
of life ? Is it not simply a moral purification of character? 
Certainly so! And what is the form of cleansing? Ezek. 
xxxvi. 25, answers the question in plain and simple lan- 
guage: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
ye shall be clean." John performs his baptism, or legal 
purification by sprinkling. The Jews attached peculiar 
cleanliness to running water, and hence used it in their 
legal purifications. It was on this account that John 
preached and baptized where there was running water. 
If we take into consideration, in this connection, the bap- 
tism of Christ, we will get more light upon the subject. 

Robert. — I do want to hear what you have to say about 
the baptism of Christ. If you can get sprinkling into 
that baptism, I think I will have to yield the controversy. 

James. — Well, we will examine it with some care. But 
it is getting late now, and we will postpone our examina- 
tion of it until you can come again. Let us part for the 
night and think over what has already come before us. 
Good-night. 

On the following evening Robert presented himself as 
before, and they again took up the study of the Bible on 
the subject of baptism. 

Robert. — Brother James, I have been looking into the 
baptism of our Saviour, and I must say that I have experi- 
enced a good deal of satisfaction in the thought that his 
immersion is so clearly shown that you must admit it. 
In our past examination of the Bible you removed a good 
many of our landmarks ; but I feel that this one stands se- 
cure against all assaults. That our Saviour was immersed 
is, I think, beyond controversy. 



72 BAPTISM. 

James. — Unless John changed his mode of baptism in 
the case of Christ from that of the multitude, I think the 
controversy is stih on, Brother Robert, unless you yield 
that sprinkling is Bible baptism. But I am glad to see 
you so cheerful, and wish to assure you that I have no 
disposition whatever to undermine your confidence. You 
are aware that it was 3'our kind intention to show me my 
error on the subject of baptism that brought us together 
to study God's Word, and not from any disposition on my 
part to undermine your faith. Whatever may be the final 
outcome of our study of the Scriptures as to baptism, I 
feel assured we will both be benefitted by our conferences 
and study of tlie Word. Let us now look into that portion 
which tells us of the baptism of our Saviour. Please read 
iMatthew, third chapter, beginning at the 13th verse. 

Robert. — ''Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, 
unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, 
saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest 
thou to me. And Jesus answering, said unto him. Suffer 
it to be so now ; for thus it becometh us lo fulfill all right- 
eousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he 
was baptized, went up straightway out of the water; and 
io, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the 
Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon 
him: and, lo, a voice from heaven, saying. This is my 
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Brother James, 
that must have been a grand sight. I have read this 
many times before, but have never been so impressed with 
the seriousness and grandeur of the spectacle as now. In 
my imagination, I can see the water sparkle like diamonds 
as it drops from his hair and garments when the light, 
brighter than that of the sun, falls upon him as he comes 
up out of the water, and I can almost hear the voice say, 
"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 73 

How the people must have stood in wonder as they gazed 
upon him. 

James. — Yes, Brother Robert, this incident and scene 
is one of the most sublime and impressiv® to be found in 
the whole Word of God. As we read of the garden of 
Eden, our imagination is aroused to behold a scene in 
which nature is exposed in her grandest manifestations. 
The sun shines upon it in all his glory, and for a season 
no cloud mars the beauty of the prospect. But as we gaze, 
and before we have time to give expression to our wonder 
and admiration, a dark, dark cloud settles upon it and 
shuts it from our view; and a feeling of awe lays hold 
upon us ; and a chilling voice sounds in our ears — "sin and 
death, sin and death." But when we contemplate this 
scene at Jordan we feel that, somehow, it has much to do 
with that in Eden — that it raises the dark cloud that has 
been so oppressive, so killing to the children of Adam; 
and that now the day-spring from on high has visited us, 
and shines upon us in all his effulgence and glory. In- 
stead of the awe-inspiring cry of '^sin and death, sin and 
death" sounding in the ears of the human family, the 
voice of the Son of God cries out in loving intonations: 
''righteousness and life, righteousness and life." But it 
detracts from the sublimity of the incident, and emascu- 
lates the great work to which Jesus Christ has set himself, 
to give to his baptism no higher aim than that of initiating 
a mode of administering the rite. 

Robert. — Brother James, I feel, with you, that this 
baptism was not the central object in the scene before us — 
that the water baptism was a mere incident in the back* 
ground of the picture, and few of us, I fear, have been 
able to discover its true purpose and meaning. 

James. — This portion of Scripture is so full of mean- 
ing, and I feel so keenly my own inadequacy to unfold it 



74 BAPTISM. 

to you even as I myself see it, I think it would be well 
for us to seek divine aid in our investigation of it. The 
Lord most graciously says to us in his holy Word : "If any 
of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that gives to all 
men liberally, and upbraideth not." Brother Robert, let 
us seek God's help as we peruse his Word, so we may get 
at its true meaning. Lead us in prayer to this end. 

After prayer, James continued. 

James. — You notice. Brother Robert, that Jesus teaches 
here that his baptism was a matter of righteousness — 
righteousness on the part of both John and himself. "It 
bccometh zf^/' he says, ''to fulfill all righteousness." Right- 
eousness, you know, is a forensic term — it is used in con- 
nection with law. A man was called a righteous man 
when he kept the law. Evidently, then, the Saviour refers 
to some law to which his baptism at the hands of John 
would conform ; and John apparently understands at once 
the attitude Jesus assumes ; for as soon as he speaks of 
righteousness, he baptized him, although he had just re- 
fused to do it. Now, the question is, what was this law 
to which Christ referred, and to which his baptism would 
conform ? 

Robert. — Brother James, I suppose the law to which 
Christ referred is in the Old Testament, and I must ac- 
knowledge that I do not know much about the Old Testa- 
ment. Indeed, I thought the Old Testament was done 
away with when Christ came. At any rate, I never 
thought it had much to do with baptism. I cannot tell 
what law, nor where the law is to be found, to which 
Christ refers. 

James. — I am afraid you do not stand alone in your 
views of the Old Testament, and am sorry the idea is so 
prevalent that it has been done away with. If the Old Tes- 
tament has been done away with, it has not been by God's 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 75 

command. Christ says he ''came to fulfill the law and the 
prophets," and he quotes the Old Testament all through 
his preaching. The Apostles preached much from the 
Old Testament, and Paul says : ''All Scripture is given by 
inspiration." But before proceeding to the law to which 
Christ referred, I call your attention to a matter which 
is but seldom spoken of, but which, to my mind, throws 
considerable light upon what is called the baptism of 
Christ. Had you ever noticed that Christ did not present 
himself for baptism until he was about thirty years of 
age? See Luke iii. 23. Now, why is the Holy Spirit 
careful to make Luke mention this apparently insignificant 
fact? 

Robert. — I really do not know ; I had never thought 
about it. Indeed, Luke says so little about the baptism of 
Christ that he is very seldom referred to at all on the 
subject. I do not think I have ever heard Luke quoted 
when baptism was under discussion. But as you have 
called my attention to this matter, all I can say is, that he 
could not have gone to John at an earlier age, because 
John had only lately commenced preaching. 

James. — fjust so, but then, I might ask you why John 
had not commenced preaching five or ten years before? 
He was the special messenger of God, sent to prepare the 
way for his Son. He, himself, must have been about 
thirty years of age, when he commenced preaching, fot 
he had been preaching but a short while when Jesus came 
to him for baptism. Now, here are two men, men of 
special importance in the sight of God and in the world ; 
men with special missions pertaining to heaven and heav- 
enly things, and to the eternal interests of the human 
family — men, indeed, upon whom were suspended even 
the possibility of a glorious eternity to any of the children 
of men. And yet they withhold their message until they 



76 BAPTISM. 

are about thirty years of age. Again, I ask the question, 
why did they do this ? Why did John not commence call- 
ing the people to repentance when he was a young man 
of twenty or twenty-five years of age? At that age, his 
mind was strong and vigorous, and the people were ex- 
pecting something wonderful to occur. And why did 
Jesus, when he was twenty or twenty-five years of age, 
spend five or ten more years in the carpenter's shop, when 
he could have been performing such beneficent work as 
curing diseases and forgiving sins? when he could have 
brought such glorious sunshine into the darkened and 
sin-ladened souls of so many men. Ah ! Brother Robert, 
the answer to this can only be found in the language of 
our Saviour — "thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteous- 
ness." John was a priest by lineal descent; Christ was a 
priest by special appointment, but before either of them 
could enter upon the duties of their priestly office, they 
must submit to the lazv pertaining to that office, and one 
law was that they should be thirty years of age. This is 
the secret of the whole matter. Read Num. iv. 2, 3, 46, 47. 

Robert. — "Take of the sons of Kohath from among the 
sons of Levi after their families, by the house of their 
fathers. From thirty years old and upward, even until 
fifty years old, all that enter into the host, to do the work 
in the tabernacle of the congregation. All those that were 
numbered of the Levites, whom Moses and Aaron and 
the chief of Israel numbered, after their families, and 
after the house of their fathers. From thirty years old 
and upward, even until fifty years old, every one that 
came to do the service of the ministry, and the service of 
the burden in the tabernacle of the congregation." 

James. — These Scriptures show at what age the Levltes 
were to enter upon the active work of the ministry, and 
the manner of their consecration to the work, you know, 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. yy 

was by the anointing with oil and sprinkHng of pure 
water ; Lev. viii. 30 and Num. viii. 7. The moral law did 
not require water to be applied to persons for any purpose, 
neither did the civil law of the Jews. No part of the cere- 
monial law required the application of water to any per- 
son at thirty years of age as a religious ordinance, except 
that which required the priests to be thus set apart to their 
office. These were to serve from thirty years of age and 
upward. But before any of them could legally engage in 
officiating as priests, they must observe the law of their 
consecration. This law- stipulated that they must be 
"sprinkled with pure water and anointed with oil." 
Hence Jesus, of the tribe of Judah, a priest by divine ap- 
pointment and right, but without priestly descent, a priest 
for ever after the order of Melchisedec, went to John, his 
forerunner, and a priest by lineal descent, when he was 
about thirty years of age, and demanded to be set apart 
to his priestly office according to the law, by sprinkling 
and anointing. John performed his part by sprinkling 
water upon him, and God performed his part by anoint- 
ing him with the Holy Ghost. And thus the law was ob- 
served by both John and Christ. 

Robert. — ^Well, Brother James, you have certainly pre- 
sented this matter to me in a new light. I have never 
heard any of our Baptist ministers explain this matter of 
Christ's age when he went to John for baptism. True, I 
had read that portion of Luke in which his age Is stated, 
but it had never made any particular impression on my 
mind. But as you present the case, his age supplies the 
key to his baptism, and entirely changes its form and 
import. If you are right, and I cannot prove that you 
are wrong, it follows that Christ was baptized by sprink' 
ling and not by immersion. This I must admit unless 
something stronger than anything I have yet been taught 
or the Bible Indicates, is brought against it. 



78 BAPTISM. 

James. — Brother Robert, your readiness to admit the 
truth when you perceive it is very commendable, and 
saves us a great deal of time. You know, you started out 
to show me the scripturalness of immersion, and thus 
lead me to submit to it as Christian baptism ; but I think 
that, up to the present we have seen but little immersion 
in the Bible. You admit that if my reasoning is correct, 
and you say you cannot refute it, that Christ was sprinkled 
and not immersed. Now, that is just what I believe, and 
that is what the great Presbyterian Church believes, and 
what all Pedobaptists believe, and they form at least nine- 
tenths of the Christian world. But let us go a little further 
into this matter. You notice, there is nothing in the 
Scripture that records the fact of Christ's baptism to in- 
dicate that the mode of his baptism differed from that of 
the multitude. Hence, we conclude that, if John baptized 
by sprinkling, this mode would bring the act in line with 
the discussion on purification between John's disciples 
and the Jews. 

Robert. — Brother James, although I believe you have 
logically deduced from Scripture that John's mode of bap- 
tism was by sprinkling, yet the idea of immersion still 
clings to my mind, even in the face of my convictions. 
Here the Bible says that Jesus, after his baptism, 'Svent 
up straightway out of the water." Now, why did he go 
into the water if he was only sprinkled ? 

James. — Brother Robert, I know it is a most difficult 
matter to free the mind from pre-conceived opinions and 
the impressions made by early instruction, and I sympa- 
thize with you in your present mental condition. We 
have just learned that the Jews attached a peculiar cleans- 
ing power to running water. Now, at the time of our 
Saviour's advent, the Jewish mind was greatly agitated in 
reference to the promised Messiah. When John came 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 79 

preaching repentance and proclaiming the near approach 
of the ''kingdom of heaven," the people flocked in multi- 
tudes to hear him. Those who professed repentance were 
baptized, and, as they had peculiar views of running 
water, I can see a motive for those who were baptized to 
go down into it for that purpose. In that position it would 
be easier for John to dip hysop in the water and sprinkle 
them while standing in it. My impressions, as to the 
truth of this, are greatly strengthened and confirmed by 
the many portions of Scripture that refer to sprinkling as 
a means of cleansing. In the 51st Psalm, and 7th verse, 
David says : ''Purge me with hysop, and I shall be clean." 
In Ezekiel we read, "Then shall I sprinkle clean water 
upon you and ye shall be clean." And Peter speaks of 
the "sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." These and 
many other passages teach that sprinkling was the com- 
mon symbol of cleansing. And, as I have said, it would 
be easier for John, and the quicker method, for both to go 
down into the water to be sprinkled with hysop, as their 
garments did not reach fully to their feet, and their feet 
were bare, or only had sandals on. In this way it could 
be very truthfully said they "came up out of the water." 
But there are a few things in your doctrine and practice 
which spring out of the baptism of Christ that I want to 
notice, and which appear to me to be inconsistent. You 
Baptists, or immersers, will not permit a sprinkler to sit 
with you at the Lord's Supper, to partake of that precious 
feast with you. Why is this ? 

Robert. — Because we think no one should partake of 
the Lord's Supper but members of the Church, and one 
cannot become a member of the Church but by baptism ; 
and as our Church believes that immersion alone is Chris- 
tian baptism, we cannot allow Pedobaptists to take the 
Lord's Supper with us because they have not been bap- 
tized. 



8o BAPTISM. 

James. — That sounds reasonable, Brother Robert, and 
if I understand you, you not only make immersion the 
initiatory rite, or door into the Church, but you make it 
also the test of Christian standing. 

Robert. — I doubt whether I understand you thor- 
oughly. If you mean that we believe that no one can be 
a Christian but those who submit to immersion, you are 
mistaken. My Church does not teach that, and if it did 
I would not believe it, for I believe there are many Chris- 
tians who do not believe in immersion. 

James. — ^Well, suppose that a number of these many 
Christians agree to combine together to build a house to 
worship in, and suppose they get a minister to preach to 
them, and that they use the same Bible that you Baptists 
use, and suppose they find in that Bible a form for their 
spiritual government, and also that the Lord instituted a 
feast and ordered it continued, and that in obedience to 
this they observe this feast, which is called the Lord's 
Supper, are they not then, a part of God's Church? 

Robert. — ^Your question is one of deep significance, and 
I fear to give it an answer without more thought. I think 
I can see where it will run to ; but I ask you not to push 
it any further at present. I have never had occasion to 
think on many of the things you have brought up since 
we began our study, and with shame I confess ignorance 
on subjects with which I ought to have been familiar. 

James. — Well, Brother Robert, I respect your feelings 
and will not push that matter any further at present. But 
there is just an inconsistency about the Baptist Church 
of which many of you seem to be ignorant. To be in 
strict line with your doctrine, all who have been immersed 
are members of the Church. Campbellites have been im- 
mersed, therefore Campbellites are members of the 
Church. And yet you deny this, for you will not let them 
sit with you at the Lord's table. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 8i 

Robert. — Yes, that is true, and there is an apparent in- 
consistency that I cannot reconcile. I suppose my Church 
has good reasons for doing as it does. 

James. — Well, to come back to the thought that pre- 
sented itself to my mind a few minutes ago. You make 
immersion the door into the Church, do you not? 

Robert. — Yes, we do not consider a person a member 
of the Church unless he has been immersed. 

James. — Now, what is it that admits us into the spir- 
itual kingdom of God, or what is sometimes called the 
invisible Church, that Church, you know, which embraces 
all true believers here, as well as all those who have gone 
to heaven? Let us, for the sake of clearness, speak of 
the Church as visible and invisible. The visible, or that 
which is seen in the world and embraces all Christian 
denominations, or, as you Baptists like it best, just the 
Baptist Church, (for this is what you teach), and the in- 
visible, or that which is set up in the heart, and which 
projects itself into eternity. This is not a very scientific 
distinction, but it will do for our purpose. I repeat the 
question — what is it that admits us into God's spiritual 
kingdom ? 

Robert. — (Why, the Holy Ghost, to be sure, in what is 
called regeneration. 

James. — Here, then, is a wonderful thing. One is ad- 
mitted into the invisible Church by an act of the Holy 
Ghost; but into the visible Church by immersion, which 
represents the burial and resurrection of Christ, a thing 
that has nothing to do with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 
And yet the invisible Church is composed of believers 
now in the world, together with those who have passed 
over the river. Does this strike you as being in accord 
with the law of the fitness of things ? 

Robert. — Brother James, without a doubt, we must 



82 BAPTISM. 

give up the doctrine that Christian baptism represents the 
burial and resurrection of Christ. 

James. — Very well, Brother Robert, I hope you will 
find a more solid foundation for immersion to rest upon. 
But now I wish to ask you another question: Why do 
you exhort us sprinklers to follow Christ in baptism? 
That is, of course, in immersion? 

Robert. — We do so not only that you may be baptized, 
but that you may become members of the Church. 

James. — I take it then, that Christ became a member of 
the Church by baptism. This must be so. If I am ad- 
mitted into the Church by baptism, and to this end I am 
admonished to follow Christ, it must be that Christ was 
admitted into the Church by baptism. If, by following 
him in baptism, I become a member of the Church, that 
which makes me a member must have made him a mem- 
ber also, or why ask me to follow him in baptism to 
that end? 

Robert. — Why, of course. Brother James, immersion 
has been the door into the Church since John's day. 
Surely the Bible is clear enough on that. Baptism is cer- 
tainly the door into the Church. 

James. — Very well, Brother Robert, but I thought you 
Baptists were strong advocates of the doctrine that the 
Christian Church was not set up until the day of Pente- 
cost. But, as you say that immersion is the door into the 
Church since John's day, I would like to know what was 
the door into the Church before John's day? 

Robert. — O there was no real Church before John's 
day. The fact is, Brother James, you are getting me be- 
wildered. I have never heard a man talk of this matter 
as you are doing. I seem to have lost all my sense. 

James. — Well, just possess your soul in patience for a 
little while and I will assist you, by the aid of God's Word, 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 83 

out of your difficulties. The fact is, my good brother, 
you never give us Pedobaptists an opportunity to talk 
this matter of baptism over with you quietly. But you 
know you invited this discussion in order to convert me, 
and if I push you into a corner I am not to blame. But 
you see at once, that if there was no Church until John's 
day, and that if John received Christ into the Church, 
John must have set up the Church himself. Now, that, if 
true, was a nice proceeding on the part of John, and I 
am astonished that you Baptists, who are such sticklers 
for church order, should endorse him in it. Here we have 
Campbellites, who immerse like yourselves, but whom 
you will not admit to the Lord's table with you because 
they have not been immersed by a Baptist preacher, and 
consequently are not members of the Church ; yet here is 
John, to whom you love to trace your origin, and whom 
you copy after, goes to work — and that without orders, 
too — and sets up a Church and receives Christ into it ; and 
yet he himself is not a member of the Church ; for there 
was none, you say, before his day. This is pretty conduct 
for Baptists to endorse. But the fact is. Brother Robert, 
that John denies setting up the Church, for his constant 
cry is, ''the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And when 
Christ sent his disciples out to preach they were to pro- 
claim ''the kingdom of heaven is at hand." And when 
Christ himself began to preach he said, "the kingdom of 
heaven is at hand." Now, we cannot say that a thing has 
come if it is only at hand — it may be very near, but it has 
not yet come. But Christ speaks very emphatically on the 
subject, and effectually closes the door of what is called 
the Christian Church against John, in Matt. xi. 11: 
"Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of 
women, there hath not risen a greater than John the Bap- 
tist; notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom of 



84 BAPTISM. 

heaven is greater than he." So you see that the privileges 
enjoyed in the Christian Church rise superior to those 
enjoyed by John the Baptist. Now, Brother Robert, in 
the face of all this^ why do you call upon us to follow 
Christ in baptism? Christ's baptism did not and could 
not admit him into the Church, because, according to your 
own statement, there was no Church. John was not au- 
thorized to set up a Church, and he says himself that he 
did not do it. So that Christ's baptism did not admit 
him into the Church, for there was none, according to 
your own doctrine. Hence, there must have been good 
reasons of another kind for John's baptism ; and these 
good reasons we have already found. There are very 
good reasons for you Baptists denying the existence of 
the Church previous to John's day, for, on the non-exist- 
ence of the Church hinges your denial of the doctrine of 
infant baptism. Not that your denial establishes a fact, 
but it furnishes you with apparently satisfactory ground 
against the practice of infant baptism. But to return. 
The fact is, my brother, that you immersers seem to mis- 
conceive the Divine intention in sending John into the 
world, and you degrade his great and glorious work by 
attaching no higher object to it than that of introducing 
immersion. But I think it must be admitted, that, if im- 
mersion rests on no better foundation than that of John's 
baptism, it has not the shadow of a support. Our Saviour 
speaks in most exalted terms of John, no doubt having 
reference at the same time to the character of the man 
and the character of his zuork. Before Christ came it was 
considered a great and glorious privilege to be permitted 
to see the Saviour — the promised Messiah. Some made 
it the earnest prayer of their lives, and they rise into the 
highest strains of oratory, when they behold in vision the 
grandeur of his kingdom and the magnitude of his work. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 85 

When the child Jesus is brought into the temple, and 
Simeon turns his eyes upon him, his soul is filled with a 
divine ecstasy, and he exclaims in burning eloquence: 
Now, Lord, thou hast brought me to the very summit of 
the hill of privileges, ''For mine eyes have beheld thy 
salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all 
the people. A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory 
of thy people Israel." John had the great privilege of 
closing an economy of law and priestly functions, and at 
the same time of proclaiming an economy of grace. He 
held in his hands, as it were, the keys to two great temples 
of worship. In one the people worshipped through laws 
and ceremonies and priestly intercession and blood of 
beasts; in the other the people present themselves before 
God with the incense of heart service through the blood of 
the Lamb of God. John closes for ever the old temple of 
types and shadows, and administers baptism in the old 
form by sprinkling water upon all who come to him, as 
a sign of their now vanishing legal purifications, and 
directs their mind to the Lamb of God, who would ad- 
minister to them that baptism of the Holy Ghost which 
would cleanse their hearts indeed,- and enable them to 
approach God, and worship in spirit and in truth. This 
view exalts John's mission and exhibits it as magnificently 
glorious. No wonder Christ classed him as the greatest 
of the prophets — ^he was great as the special messenger of 
God to prepare the way for his son, great as the last di- 
vinely appointed administrator of the sign of legal purifi- 
cation, and great as the inductor of Christ to his work of 
atonement by the sacrifice of himself — at once the sacrifice 
and the priest. 

Robert. — Brother James, I am greatly impressed with 
the explanation you have given of John's work and mis- 
sion. Heretofore I had not thought much about him 



86 BAPTISM. 

except in connection with immersion, and I must say that 
my thoughts of him, and what I have heard the ministers 
of my church say about him, were not cakulated to give 
point to his work, or to raise him to any extent above the 
priests of his time, except in so far as his zeal rose above 
theirs. 

James. — ^I think mine is the only rational explanation 
that can be given of John — his preaching and his baptism. 
He stands at a point where two roads meet, a point that 
is denominated in Scripture as the ''fulness of time." One 
is the road of types and shadows ; the other the road of 
grace through the cross. He closes up the old road and 
directs the people to the new. John's baptism was the 
sign of the old legal purifications, and the sealing up of 
the old dispensation. The Jews were not acquainted with 
immersion as a religious act; they were familiar with 
sprinkling and divers washings ; hence immersion would 
have conveyed no meaning to them. You see then, my 
brother, when you exhort me to follow Christ in baptism, 
you admonish me to leave that which is Christian baptism 
and turn to that which is not. Before I can consent to do 
that it must be shown that law can do more for me than 
grace. This would be taking a long step in the wrong 
direction. However the Jew might glory in an economy 
of law, we glory in that economy of grace which ex- 
emplifies itself in the regenerating power of the Holy 
Ghost, by whom we are united to Christ in our effectual 
calling. It is to honor this great work of the Holy Spirit, 
and show it forth in symbolic act we practice Christian 
baptism, and not to symbolize the act of men in the 
burial of Christ. But let us examine the instances of 
Christian baptism recorded in the Scriptures, and see 
whether they teach immersion, or whether immersion can 
reasonably be deduced from them. The first Christian 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 87 

baptism on record is that on the day of Pentecost. But, 
perhaps we had better defer our examination of this until 
to-morrow night. 

Robert. — Very well, Brother James, we will separate 
now. Good-night. 

On the folowing evening Robert went again to the 
home of James and both retired to the usual place of 
study. 

James. — ^The first Christian baptism is recorded in the 
second chapter of Acts. Please read from the 36th to the 
41st verses inclusive; they not only tell us of the fact of 
baptism, but what led to it. 

Robert. — "Therefore let all the house of Israel know 
assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom 
ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. Now, when they 
heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto 
Peter and the rest of the Apostles, Men and brethren what 
shall we do? Then Peter said unto them. Repent, and be 
baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, 
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of 
the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to 
your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many 
as the "Lord our God shall call. And with many other 
words did he testify and exhort, saying, save yourselves 
from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly 
received his word were baptized ; and the same day there 
were added unto them about three thousand souls." 

James. — Brother Robert, what do you make of these 
baptisms? Is immersion mentioned in these Scriptures? 
Could any one who had never heard of immersion infer 
from the Scriptures you have read that those people were 
immersed ? 

Robert. — The Bible does not mention immersion in 



88 BAPTISM. 

this case, but the very fact that they were baptized shows 
they were immersed. 

James. — Brother Robert, I am astonished that you fall 
back on that old and worn-out proposition. It has already 
been shown from English and German-Greek Lexicogra- 
phers that the original word of which baptism is the Eng- 
lish form means "to dip," ''to pour," "to sprinkle," as 
well as to immerse. In fact, we have already seen that 
the idea of immersion as baptism in the New Testament is 
effectually excluded. It is excluded in that, the Scriptures 
teach, that baptism was intended to represent the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost, and must therefore be performed by 
sprinkling or pouring. Now, these points have long ago 
been settled and disposed of, both logically and scriptur- 
ally. Why, then, bring them up at this late day, when 
they have no weight whatever, except it may be to prolong 
discussion. I have always observed that the person who 
has the weak side in discussion reverts again and again to 
the very thing that is denied, and tries to use it as proof. 
I deny that immersion is Christian baptism, and the 
Scriptures sustain me in my contention, as we have al- 
ready seen from twenty-one passages. It is therefore 
childish for you to say that those persons on the day of 
Pentecost were immersed, just because they were bap- 
tized. On my part, I might say, and with great truth, as 
has already been shown, that the fact that they were 
baptized proves they were sprinkled. You will bear in 
mind, my dear brother, that the object before us at the 
preselit time is not to show how these parties were bap- 
tized — we have already seen that the water was sprinkled 
or poured upon them — but to see whether those portions 
of Scripture in which baptism is mentioned positively 
state a mode of baptism, or whether a mode can logically 
be deduced from them. You Baptists claim that immer- 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 89 

sion is clearly taught in the Scriptures, and our present 
effort is to be directed to see whether this is so. If im- 
mersion is as clearly taught as you affirm, we should 
certainly be able to see it. The portion of Scripture you 
have read from the second chapter of Acts, is the record 
of the first Christian baptisms, and it is very evident from 
the language used in relating the incidents of that his- 
toric day, that immersion is not even remotely intimated. 
Peter is the prominent character of the day. He assumes 
the position of official spokesman. The people had con- 
gregated, en masse, because of the wonderful work of the 
Holy Spirit in bestowing the gift of tongues. There were 
assembled at Jerusalem people from Europe, Asia, Africa 
and the islands of the Mediterranean Sea, representing 
different languages and dialects. The Apostles were en- 
abled to preach to the people so that every man could hear 
the Gospel in his own tongue. There was no occasion for, 
nor does the record state, that any but the Apostles 
preached. There was no necessity for any besides the 
Apostles to preach, for twelve languages and dialects 
would reach all the geographical territory represented. 
The Holy Spirit worked mightily upon the people, con- 
victing them of sin, especially the great sin of crucifying 
the Lord of glory; and they enquired diligently of Peter 
and the rest of the Apostles, what they should do to be 
saved. Peter replied in the language you have read, and 
it is very evident that immersion is neither mentioned nor 
indicated. In the language of the Scripture : "repent and 
be baptized," there is absolutely nothing in favor of im- 
mersion, while in the circumstances there is very much 
against it. I know that you immersers claim that the one 
hundred and twenty disciples mentioned in the first chap- 
ter of Acts, engaged with the twelve Apostles in immers- 
ing the three thousand converts of that day. But you are 



90 BAPTISM. 

apt to claim a great deal more than is written. There is 
nothing in the record to show that the one hundred and 
twenty disciples took any active part in the transactions 
of the day. Indeed, the one hundred and twenty disciples 
are not once mentioned after the election of Matthias to the 
Apostolate. Any affirmation concerning them after this 
recorded fact is merely guess work. If I were to deny 
their presence in the upper room when the Holy Spirit 
was poured out, you would experience some trouble in 
proving the contrary. Hence, to say that the one hundred 
and twenty disciples assisted the twelve Apostles in im- 
mersing the three thousand is merely an affirmation of 
you immersers — it has no Scripture to sustain it. There 
is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate that the one hun- 
dred and twenty disciples took any active part in the 
transactions of the day. 

Robert. — Brother James, I like to hear you talk; you 
are very instructive ; but, at the same time, you are very 
destructive — ^of my theories. Our ministers have always 
said that the one hundred and twenty disciples helped the 
Apostles to immerse the three thousand on the day of 
Pentecost, and I took it for granted that it was so. But 
I see now there is no real ground for this — it is merely 
assumption. 

James. — »Just so, Brother Robert, I am glad you see 
these things as they are. Another thing that seems to be 
overlooked by you immersers, generally, in connection 
with the baptisms on the day of Pentecost is, that the 
Bible does not say anything as to the time when the 
preaching ceased and the baptizing commenced. The Im- 
pression you strive to make is, that the preaching con- 
tinued but a short while, and that the baptizing took up 
the greater portion of the day. Now, there is nothing 
in the record to this effect. The fact is, that it was through 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 91 

the preaching the people were led to believe. The preach- 
ing, therefore, was the prominent feature^ and in all prob- 
ability, consumed the major portion of the time, and the 
baptizing but a little while. It was during the day the 
three thousand were added, and not during the afternoon 
and night. In calculating the time needed to immerse the 
three thousand persons on the day of Pentecost, another 
feature of the occasion is generally overlooked. It is 
spoken of in such a way as to make the impression that 
only men were baptized, whereas Joel says, that the Spirit 
was to be poured upon females as well as males — It was 
not upon the old men and young men only ; but upon the 
handmaids and daughters also. Now, every one knows 
that it would take much more time to immerse females 
than males, especially in the East, where the person of 
the female was guarded with such jealous care. On this 
account, it is altogether improbable that three thousand 
men and women could have been immersed in the short 
portion of the day left for baptizing. But this is not the 
only nor the greatest obstacle tO' immersion on this me- 
morable occasion ; there is another greater still. You are 
aware there was no river running through Jerusalem — 
that the people depended for their water supply on pools 
in the city, and these pools were not open and surrounded 
by steps ; but, on the contrary, were covered and had only 
a narrow way of approach. This idea is illustrated in 
the case of the impotent man at the pool of Siloam. This 
is not only so, but the city was comparatively circum- 
scribed in its area, being surround'ed by walls. Hence the 
pools must have been few and comparatively close to- 
gether. Now, if you will bear in mind that it was in 
this same city the rulers of the Jews combined against 
Jesus, and through false witnesses had him condemned 
and crucified only fifty short days before Pentecost — mark 



92 BAPTISM. 

you, not two months — you will see the improbability of 
these same rulers allowing his disciples to pollute the 
water supply of the city by immersing three thousand 
men and women in the pools. 

Robert. — But you know, Brother James, there were 
some pools that were used for bathing — the pool of 
Siloam^ for instance — and these three thousand might 
have been immersed in them. 

James. — No, Brother Robert, I do not know that there 
were any pools set apart for such a purpose as what we 
call bathing, in the way of immersion. The Jews had dif- 
ferent ideas of that which were called washings to ours of 
bathing. But even granting that there were some pools 
set apart in the city for what we call bathing, they must 
necessarily have been few. It would take ten pools and 
three hundred persons to the pool to immerse three thous- 
and persons. I confess that, to take in the idea of immer- 
sion on the day of Pentecost, all things considered, re- 
quires greater mental efifort than I am competent to exert. 
To say that these rancorous rulers, in this city of persecu- 
tion — ' these despisers and haters of Jesus of Nazareth and 
all connected with him — would sit quietly by, and see the 
water of their city polluted by the immersion of three 
thousand men and women, his followers at that, is beyond 
anything that has ever come to my knowledge. But the 
supposition of immersion in this case casts a reflection 
upon the cause of religion, and upon the Apostles of Jesus 
Christ themselves, for they must have known that the 
immersion of so many people would pollute the water', 
and to do such a thing, especially in a place where water 
was so precious, would be a great sin, and, on their part, 
not one of ignorance. To immerse three thousand men 
and women in one, or two, or three, or four pools in the 
short portion of the day left for baptizing would be a 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 93 

physical Impossibility ; and to bring the one hundred and 
twenty disciples to the assistance of the Apostles would 
increase the difficulty, for it would increase the number of 
pools needed, and thus increase the area of pollution. But 
in tile case of sprinkling or pouring, the baptisms coula 
have been performed in a very short time by the twelve 
Apostles, and that, too, without injury to the water supply, 
and without giving offense. But, as we have found that 
water baptism was intended to symbolize the baptism of 
the Holy Ghost, the evidence is that the three thousand of 
Pentecost were sprinkled. One thing is evident, and that 
is, the language of the record conveys no idea of immer- 
sion. 

Robert. — Brother James, I am unable to controvert 
anything you have said in reference to the baptisms on 
Pentecost. There is nothing to show that those converts 
went out of the city to be baptized, and the Bible does say 
they were all baptized on the same day of the preaching, 
and it does not appear reasonable that the rulers of the 
Jews would allow the disciples of one whom they so 
thoroughly hated; and whom they had crucified so short a 
time before, to use the pools of the city for the immersion 
of three thousand men and women, who were leaving the 
established religion to take up with a sect that was thor- 
oughly, and almost universally despised. I must acknowl- 
edge that immersion in this case, so far as I can see, must 
be given up. 

James. — I presume you see that if you yield immersion 
in one instance, you must yield it in all cases, unless you 
can show that the Apostles practiced more than one 
mode of baptism. But let us proceed to the investigation 
of the other instances of baptism. It is unnecessary to 
take up every instance of baptism mentioned in the Acts, 
for there are several of them of which nothing is given 



94 BAPTISM. 

but the mere fact of baptism, or baptizing — there is noth- 
ing connected with them to indicate mode, either of 
sprinkHng or immersion. See Acts viii. 12, 13. But there 
is a baptism recorded in Acts viii. 38, 39, upon which you 
immersers lay great stress, and which you press into all 
your arguments on the subject. Let us look into it for 
a little and see what it is worth. Please read. 

Robert. — ''And he commanded the chariot to stand 
still ; and they went down both into the water, both Philip 
and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they 
were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord 
caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more; 
and he went^on his way rejoicing." 

James. — Now, Brother Robert, what do you think of 
that baptism? Does the Bible say the eunuch was im- 
mersed ? Is there anything to show that he was immersed ? 

Robert. — It appears to me that we have a clear case 
of immersion in this instance. We read ''they both went 
down into the water," and both came up out of the 
water.' Is not this strong enough to convince you that the 
eunuch was immersed ? 

James. — Brother Robert, I do think we have now be- 
fore us one of the strongest arguments in the New Testa- 
ment in favor of immersion. It is one, too, that you im- 
mersers use for all it is worth. 

Robert. — Brother James, I am glad we have got to the 
point where you admit immersion. And this baptism is 
worth a great deal if it proves that the eunuch was im- 
mersed. I think you will admit that. 

James. — Yes, I will admit that it is worth a great deal 
if it proves immersion. But you go too far when you say 
we have got to the point where / admit immersion. Let 
us examine this case a little. Bear in mind that your doc- 
trine is, that immersion itself — or the going under the 
water — is baptism. Am I correct in this? 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 95 

Robert. — Certainly so. The immersion, or going under 
the water, is baptism. 

James. — Well, now, look at the 38th verse, and look at 
it closely. Please read it. 

Robert. — "And he commanded the chariot to stand 
still ; and they both went down into the water, both Philip 
and the eunuch, and Philip baptized him." 

James. — Now, what do you see in that language, 
Brother Robert? Does it say that Philip put the eunuch 
under the water ? 

Robert. — -Brother James, I can see nothing but immer- 
sion in it — they both went down into the water, and they 
both came up out of it. 

James. — Brother Robert, I am a little disappointed in 
you. Up to this time you have been able to get the teach- 
ing of the Bible pretty well, and have shown an ingenious 
mind. But now you are permitting yourself to be carried 
away with the idea of immersion to the exclusion of every- 
thing else. Let me direct your attention to the language 
of the Scriptures. You perceive there are two things, two 
acts, brought to our notice in this 38th verse. One is 
going down into the water; the other is the act of baptiz- 
ing. It was not the act of going down into the water that 
constituted the baptism; for the baptism was performed 
after they went down into the water, and there is nothing 
to show that the eunuch was put under the water when 
being baptized. In immersion the person is put under the 
water ; going into the water is not enough, he must go 
under it. Bear in mind that it is not on the fact of bap- 
tism you immersers base your argument in this case ; but 
on the expressions — "they both went down into the 
water," and "came up out of the water." 

Robert. — I see the point you make, and must acknowl- 
edge there is something to it. The grammatical construe- 



96 BAPTISM. 

tion of the sentences, which record the fact of baptism, 
shows very clearly that two things occurred, first, going 
down into the water, and, second, the baptism. But what 
will you make of it? 

James. — I do not know that I will make very much of 
it. The facts in the case just simply remove it from 
you as an argument in favor of immersion. It appears 
a very little thing, and yet it proves that the going down 
into the water was not baptism; the baptism was per- 
formed after the going down into the water, and there is 
nothing, absolutely nothing, to show that the eunuch was 
immersed. This case is one of your strong forts, you 
know, and already it has been destroyed by four little 
words, "and he baptized him." But let us look a little 
further into this baptism. The expressions upon which 
immersion are based in this instance are ''into" and ''out 
of" — "both went down into the water, and came up out 
of the water." This language is all that could possibly 
lead to the idea of an immersion, and I think it must be 
granted that it would require a good deal of previous in- 
struction on the subject to get immersion into it. If I 
am simply told that a man went down into water, there 
is no necessity for me to imagine that he went under it, 
or was immersed in the common meaning of the term. 
Going into water conveys no idea as to degree. It simply 
states the fact of being in it. One might be in water so 
far as to cover the soles of his shoes, or his knees, or his 
waist, and yet it could not be said of such an one that 
he was immersed. If I go into water to the depth of my 
shoes tops, and another goes in to his waist, it can be as 
truthfully said of me that I went into the water, as of the 
other that he went into it. The only difference in the 
case is one of degree; the one was a little deeper than 
the other, but both were in the water. Now, as to the 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 97 

case of Philip and the eunuch, the simple statement is 
made — "they both went down into the water ;" that is all ; 
and after going down into the water, Philip baptized him. 
There is nothing, then, in the expression *'into" and 
"out of" that, need lead to the idea of an immersion. 

Robert. — Brother James, I must say that you have 
given this incident a different coloring from any it ever 
had to me before. Is it not strange that the ministers of 
my Church will harp upon this baptism as a proof of im- 
mersion, when^ as you have clearly shown, and I now 
as clearly perceive, there is nothing in the Bible to show it 
was an immersion. Brother James, I am really ashamed 
of myself. 

James. — My brother, you need not blame yourself so 
much in this case; you are just as all others of your fel- 
low immersers ; you never really looked into this baptism 
before. The instrument you have played upon heretofore 
had only one string, and gave out only one sound — im- 
mersion. Into the water — immersion ; out of the water — 
immersion. 

It is frequently the little circumstances of a case 
that give it any importance, and the little things are 
frequently overlooked. The little things of this baptism 
were overshadowed by the great things "into the water" — 
immersion, "out of the water" — immersion. You went 
to this baptism with your mind running over with im- 
mersion ; and hence could not see, and did not think of, 
anything else. You never thought that Philip and the 
eunuch could go down into the water without an immer- 
sion taking place ; and you never noticed that it was after 
they went down into the water that Philip baptized him. 
This act of Philip was too small for you to observe. 
When you looked at this baptism, you had on the green 
glasses of immersion, and everything you saw looked 



98 BAPTISM. 

green. But let us examine this baptism a little more. It 
is a very interesting one. My minister informs me that 
the Greek word rendered ''into" in this passage means 
"to," "on," or "by," as well as "into"— that the word is 
"eis," and the same word, "eis," is rendered "into" in 
Matt. V. I. "And seeing the multitude, he went up into 
"eis" a mount; and when he was set, his disciples came 
unto him." Now, Brother Robert, what meaning would 
you give to the word "into" in connection with the moun- 
tain in this quotation? It seems that the Vv^ord "into" in 
this case has the same meaing as the Greek word used 
in connection with the baptism of the eunuch. They both 
went down into — eis — the water; Christ went up into — 
eis — the mountain. 

Robert. — You know, Brother James, that I make no 
pretentions to a knowledge of the Greek language, and 
so can make no explanation as to the specific or general 
meaning of a Greek word. But the w^ord "into" is used in 
both instances ; and, taking a common-sense view of the 
incident of our Saviour in connection with the mountain, 
it is evident he did not go into the mountain in the same 
sense as we think of an immersion — it did not cover him 
up on every side, as the water covers one in immersion. 
The sense evidently is, that the Saviour went up some 
distance on the mountain side and sat down, and taught 
the people from that elevated situation. 

James, — Brother Robert, you have taken a very sensi- 
ble view of the mountain incident ; but, as you acknowl- 
edge that the word "into" in that case does not mean, and 
cannot mean, into in the same sense as into the water, in 
immersion, why do you insist that, because the expres- 
sion "into the water" is used in connection with baptism, 
that the eunuch must, therefore, have been immersed? 

Robert. — Brother James, you present me to myself in 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 99 

sucB a way as to make me ashamed of myself. It is hu- 
miliating to me to see myself as I really am. I courted 
this investigation on baptism, believing, in my vanity, 
that I was so thoroughly familiar with the Bible, and so 
fortified on immersion, that I would convince you of 
your error. But instead of this, you down me at every 
point, and leave me without an argument to oppose 
you. I greatly fear I went to the Bible with a doctrine 
and looked for proof to sustain it, and thought I found 
it on the very surface, instead of going to the Bible for 
my doctrine. In this way I have really injured myself, for 
I find that I am not only not able to oppose you, but 
unable to sustain myself. 

James. — iWell, Brother Robert, do not be too much 
cast down. I think you have done about as well as any 
immerser could do. There may be some — ^I have no 
doubt there are — who would not yield to the truth as 
readily as you do — some who would endeavor to use 
sophistry for argument; but as to a sound refutation of 
the truths we have brought to the surface, their efforts 
would be as fruitless as yours. You have done very well^ 
considering your side of the question. But, back again 
to the matter before us. You see that the statement, 
"went down into the water," and "came up out of the 
water" does not teach immersion. 

Robert. — I can see very clearly now that going down 
into the water does not necessarily teach immersion. 
But how is the mode of baptism to be settled in this case? 
The eunuch was baptized in some way, and it looks like 
we ought to be able to tell how. 

James. — Your remark is a very sensible one, Brother 
Robert. But if we cannot discover how the eunuch was 
baptized, it ought to teach you immersers a good lesson. 
You should not be so arrogant and insistent on a mode — 



100 BAPTISM. 

your mode — as you are; because there is a possibility, as 
well as a very great probability, that the eunuch was 
not immersed. Let us look into the case a little more 
minutely. You remember, in the case of John the Bap- 
tist, we found a sidelight that relieved the darkness, and 
enabled us to discover the mode of his baptism. This 
sidelight came to us partly through the discussion on puri- 
fication between John's disciples and the Jews. Through 
that discussion and the baptism of Christ, we found that 
John baptized by sprinkling. Now, in the case of the 
eunuch, we may find a sidelight that will help us settle 
the question as to his baptism. 

KoBERT. — Well, proceed, Brother James; I await your 
questions and explanations with a good deal of anxiety. 
You bring up such unexpected things that one never 
knows what is to come next. 

James. — There is nothing so very deep in either my 
questions or explanations. It seems to me they lie upon 
the surface, or very near to it, and would naturally pre- 
sent themselves to a mind honestly seeking the truth of 
God's Word. I think, my brother, with all due respect 
to you and your fellow immersers, that the trouble is not 
with me, nor with those like me, who believe in sprinkling 
or pouring, but with yourselves. You take too contracted 
a view of 'God's Word in those passages which treat of 
baptism. If there seems to be the slightest coloring of 
immersion in any statement, you magnify it; you dwell 
upon it ; you embrace and hug it — ^not the Scripture state- 
ment, but immersion — until that idea obscures and dom- 
inates everything else. You adopt an excellent plan to 
get a distorted view of Scripture, and you succeed in get- 
ting distorted views. But let us get back to the eunuch 
and Philip. I wish to call your attention to the 36th verse 
of this 8th chapter of Acts. Please read it. Brother 
Robert. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. loi 

Robert. — "And as they went on their way, they came 
to a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is 
water ; what doth hinder me to be baptized ?'" 

James. — Brother Robert, do you notice anything 
worthy of remark in that Scripture? 

Robert. — No, there is nothing that particularly attracts 
my attention. 

James. — Does the idea not present itself that that par- 
ticular water could not have been of any great magnitude, 
or the eunuch would not have had to call Philip's attention 
to it as he did? "See," says he, "look, here is water." 
In all probability it was but a little purling brook. But 
there is another thing in the language you have read of 
more significance than the quantity of water. You notice, 
I presume, that baptism is first mentioned by the eunuch. 
Philip had not said one word about baptism ; he had 
never mentioned, never referred to it at all. Now, the 
question is, what gave rise to the idea of baptism in the 
eunuch's mind? Ideas do not come up spontaneously in 
the human mind ; it requires something to call them forth. 
Now, what was it that gave rise to the idea of baptism in 
the eunuch's mind? 

Robert. — Brother James, I do not know what gave rise 
to the idea of baptism in the eunuch's mind. The thought 
you present never came to me before, and I do not catch 
its significance. I suppose, however, he must have seen 
some baptisms, or had been reading about baptisms per- 
haps. It may have been that he was in Jerusalem on the 
day of Pentecost, or he may have witnessed some baptism 
elsewhere. 

James. — Brother Robert, I think your supposition car- 
ries with it the facts in the case. If he had found any- 
thing in the Scriptures he had been reading that corres- 
ponded with the baptisms, he, in all probability, had wit- 



102 BAPTISM. 

nessed in Jerusalem, the idea of baptism was very perti- 
nent in his case. We are told distinctly that he was read- 
ing the prophecy of Isaiah when Philip came up to him. 
The quotation in the Acts is from Isaiah liii. 7, 8. Please 
read it, Brother Robert. 

Robert. — "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted ; yet 
he opened not his mouth : he was brought as a lamb to the 
slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so 
he opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison and 
from judgment; and who shall declare his generation? 
For he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the 
transgression of my people was he stricken." 

James. — The pronoun "he" here gives us the key to the 
whole transaction. It was this word that induced the 
question of the eunuch in the 34th verse : "And the eunuch 
answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh 
the prophet this ? of himself or of some other man ?" We 
must go further back in the prophecy to find the party 
to whom the word "he" refers. Please read Isaiah lii. 13, 

H, 15. 
Robert. — iBehold my servant shall deal prudently, he 

shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many 

were astonished at thee : his visage was marred more than 

any man; so shall he sprinkle many nations: the kings 

shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not 

been told them they shall see, and that which they had not 

heard shall they consider." 

James. — Now, this servant is the party to whom Philip 

refers as Jesus, and whom he preaches to the eunuch. 

The prophet Isaiah informs us as to what Jesus would do, 

that "he would sprinkle many nations." And Ezekiel 

informs us also what God promised to do — "Then will I 

sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean. A 

new heart will I give you." Ezek. xxxvi. 25. This is 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 103 

the key to the baptism of the eunuch. Philip preached 
Jesus to him from Isaiah, and Isaiah informed him that 
Jesus "would sprinkle many nations. In all probability, he 
had heard Peter preach on the day of Pentecost and wit- 
nessed some of the baptisms, and now that he is led to a 
true knowledge of the gospel through Philip, he asks if 
there is any good reason why he should not be baptized. 
Philip replied that there was not if he believed with all his 
heart. The eunuch immediately makes his profession of 
faith^ short and clear cut, "I believe that Jesus Christ is 
the Son of God;" and Philip baptized him. How did 
Philip baptize him ? Certainly in the mode of God's bap- 
tizing, of which he had just read in Isaiah, and of which 
Ezekiel speaks, by sprinkling clean water upon him. I 
do not positively affirm that the eunuch was an eye witness 
of the baptisms in Jerusalem on the day, of Pentecost; I 
simply say that it was very probable, and that he had heard 
the Apostles preach there. The charge of Peter against 
the Jews, that they had crucified the Lord of glory, would 
not appeal to him so powerfully personally as it did to 
them, as he was from Ethiopia, in Africa. But the ser- 
mon and its effect upon the people must have made a 
deep impression on his mind, and prepared him to receive 
the gospel from Philip. And when the Holy Ghost opened 
his heart, it was but natural that he should desire to bear 
testimony to the power of the blood of Christ, by receiving 
Christian baptism at the hands of Philip. And Philip bap- 
tized him by sprinkling water upon him in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to 
correspond with God's way of baptizing by the Holy 
Ghost, as taught by Isaiah and Ezekiel. 

Robert. — Brother James, your reasoning and explana- 
tion of this baptism is so clear and simple that I admire 
and admit its truth. It appeals to my mind with such 



104 BAPTISM. 

power and fitness that I cannot, even if I desired, find a 
basis for an argument against it. I have never heard any 
of the preachers of my Church reason upon the passages 
of Scripture which have engaged our attention thus far 
as you have done. In fact, they never reason at all on 
those passages of Scripture that treat of baptism. They 
affirm often enough that such and such an instance 
teaches immersion ; but as to reasoning and elucidating^ I 
have never heard them. I now see that the kind of edu- 
cation I have received from my preachers on the subject 
of baptism places me at a great disadvantage with you. 
I know that I should have studied for myself, and am 
much to blame that I did not, but I felt, as many of my 
fellow church members feel, I fear, that immersion was 
so clearly on the surface of Scripture, that all that was 
needed to be done was to say that it w^as there. In so far 
as I am able to judge, your reasoning and explanations 
are in strict correspondence with the Scriptures, and 
hence, whatever, under other circumstances, might have 
been the extent of my knowledge, I would have to admit 
the truth of your reasons and conclusions. 

James. — Very well, Brother Robert; I think your ad- 
missions may be charged, not so much to your lack of 
ability or knovv^ledge, as your nobleness of mind to ac- 
knowledge the truth when you perceive it. But now, let 
us examine the other baptisms mentioned in Scripture, 
to see whether they teach immersion so clearly as immer- 
sers would have us believe. The next baptism is that 
of Paul. You will find it in the 9th chapter of Acts, and 
i8th verse. Please read. 

Robert. — ''And immediately there fell from his eyes 
as it had been scales ; and he received sight forthwith, and 
arose, and was baptized." 

James. — Can you see any immersion in that baptism, 
Brother Robert? If so, point it out. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 105 

Robert. — I do not see anything in the language to in- 
dicate immersion. But you see, we Baptists teach that 
nothing is baptism but immersion, and as Paul was bap- 
tized, he must, of course, have been immersed, irrespective 
of what the Bible says, or does not say. 

James. — You Baptists have a short way of disposing of 
things. It is like this — we Baptists say a thing is so, and 
it is so^ because we say it is so. This certainly is short 
and terse; and might do very well if everybody agreed 
with the Baptists. But you see, there is quite a respectable 
body of men who deny this, about nine-tenths of the 
Christian world, in fact, deny that nothing is baptism but 
immersion, and denying your premises, they must, of 
course, deny your conclusion. It is not true that nothing 
is baptism but immersion. You remember, it has already 
been brought to your notice that Greek- English and Ger- 
man Lexicographers say that the Greek word baptizo has 
not a fixed and invariable meaning — that it does mean "to 
dip," "to sprinkle," to "pour upon," as well as to immerse. 
When a certain thing is affirmed as true, and another 
party denies the truth of the affirmation, it lies with the 
party who affirms to prove the truth of the affirmation. 
This is the course pursued in all cases of controversy. 
Take the courts of the country, for example. If a man is 
arrested and charged with a crime, it is for the prosecutor 
to prove the charge, and not with the man to prove his 
innocence. But you immersers pursue an entirely dif- 
ferent plan. You affirm that nothing is baptism hut im- 
mersion, and on this you affirm that all cases of baptism 
mentioned in Scripture were immersions, and then you 
call upon those who deny this to prove your affirmations 
untrue. This is reversing the order of things. But 
when we show that all the baptisms mentioned in Scrip- 
ture were not immersions ; that, in fact, none of them 



io6 BAPTISM. 

were, the only argument you bring to bear upon this is : 
"Nothing is baptism but immersion, immersion alone is 
baptism." I do not think you need be astonished that such 
an argument as this does not meet with respect. But let 
us pursue our own plan and try to get the meaning of 
Scripture words from the Scriptures themselves. I think 
this will be a safe course to pursue. As to the baptism of 
Paul^ I know you immersers do not push your doctrine 
to any great length in his case. Indeed, you but seldom 
refer to his case at all. I am willing to admit that im- 
mersion in his case was possible, as the Rivers of Abana 
and Pharpar were not so very far from Damascus; but 
the circumstances made it very improbable. If the possi- 
bilities and evidence were as strong in favor of immersion 
as the probabilities and circumstances are against it, there 
might be room for doubt as to how he was baptized. But 
the evidence in Paul's case is altogether opposed to im- 
mersion. He had been lying upon a couch for three days 
without eating or drinking. His system was reduced to 
a state of great weakness through lack of food and most 
intense mental agony; and it was not until after he had 
taken refreshments he was strengthened and capable of 
exertion. These circumstances are unfavorable to the 
supposition that he went out to be immersed. But the 
positive evidence against immersion is very strong, for 
we are told that he ''arose and was baptised.'' The langu- 
age of the text indicates that he received baptism imme- 
diately on arising from the couch. There is nothing to 
indicate that any time elapsed between his rising and his 
baptism — he ''arose and zvas baptised/' There can scarce- 
ly be anything stronger than this against immersion. In 
any event, immersion is clearly not taught here. 

Robert. — I acknowledge, Brother James^ that it would 
be hard to prove immersion from this instance of baptism. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 107 

,1 have been wonde)ring why immersion is noit imore 
clearly shown in the language of those Scriptures that 
relate the cases of baptism. 

James. — This may appear a little strange to you, 
Brother Robert, since you began to look the Bible right 
straight in the face ; but to us Pedobaptists there is noth- 
ing strange about it. The sprinklings of the Old Testa- 
ment elucidate the baptisms of the New. If the Scrip- 
tures of the New Testament taught immersion, I can 
assure you we would not be Pedobaptists, but immersers. 
Now, owing to a similarity of circumstances in the im- 
mediateness of baptism in the case of the Philippian jailer 
to that of Paul^ let us examine that baptism now. Paul 
and Silas, you remember, had been put in jail, and the 
magistrates had instructed the jailer to guard them well 
to prevent escape. In the performance of this duty, he had 
put them into an inner prison, and made their feet fast in 
stocks. This place seems to have been a kind of prison 
within the prison, a place from which escape was im- 
possible to all the arts known to man. At the midnight 
hour God visited these servants of his and gave them an 
opportunity to preach the gospel. The jail was shaken 
to its foundations; its doors were thrown open, and the 
chains fell from every prisoner. God made this the oc- 
casion and the means of convicting the jailer of his sin- 
fulness ; and he sought instruction of Paul and Silas, as 
to his salvation. They preached Jesus to him, and he 
believed their preaching and was baptized, and all his 
house. You will find the record of these baptisms in 
Acts xvi. 33. 

Robert. — ''And he took them the same hour of the 
night, and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he 
and all his, straightway." 

James. — Now, what do you think of that baptism, 



io8 BAPTISM. 

Brother Robert? Is there any indication of immersion 
there ? 

Robert. — Like all other cases that have come before 
us, the Bible does not say anything of immersion. Still 
you must admit that they may have gone out of the jail 
and been immersed. 

James. — Not so fast, Brother Robert; you must not 
assume too much. I, by no means, admit that they may 
have gone out of the jail to be immersed. 

Robert. — I cannot see why you should not admit that 
they may have gone out of the jail to be immersed. The 
Bible does not say they did not. 

James. — I think the Bible says they did not; if not 
directly, at least by implication. Such procedure on the 
part of Paul would have been in conflict with his princi- 
ples. We are told that when it was day, the magistrates 
sent messengers to tell the jailer to let Paul and Silas go. 
The message was delivered to Paul, and the jailer ex- 
horted him to go in peace. But Paul refused to leave the 
jail because he was a Roman citizen, and had been beaten 
and incarcerated without a trial. This was a clear breach 
of Roman law, and he would not slink out at their com- 
mand, and thus give a legal coloring to their conduct 
and a tinge of guilt to his own. If he was to be set at 
liberty, those who put him in must come and take him 
out. There is a degree of manhood and sterling principle 
about this, that appeals strongly to our sense of right and 
honor and manliness. But if it could be shown that this 
man who just displayed such a spirit of manhood and 
self-assertiveness, had actually gone out of the jail at 
twelve or one o'clock at night to immerse the jailer and 
his house, without the knowledge and against the express 
orders of the magistrates, would not our admiration of 
his character experience a miserable collapse? I, for one, 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 109 

am not willing, on such slight evidence as the supposition 
of others, to place Paul in such a comprising attitude. 

Robert. — Your argument against the supposition that 
Paul went out of the jail to baptize is a strong one, and 
I, with you, will not cast the least reflection on his char- 
acter. But, you know, he may have immersed in a pond 
in the jail. 

James. — True, he might have done that.. There might 
have been a pond in the jail, where the prisoners could 
enjoy the luxury of a bath ; but if they had such a thing, 
with the necessary acqueducts for letting the water in and 
out, they were far in advance of our twentieth century 
civilization. If the Romans, in the early part, and pre- 
vious to, the first century had ponds or pools in their 
jails, in which their prisoners could enjoy the luxury of 
a bath, they were far in advance of the United States in 
their sanitary arrangements, with all our boasted progress 
in civilization. In this, our jails and penitentiaries are 
just nineteen hundred years behind Pagan Rome. Still, 
this might be true, however uncomplimentary to our 
claims to progress. All I have to say is, that the proba- 
bilities in favor of it are very slender, and that such a 
supposition is in the face of historical facts and the 
proverbial cruelty of the Romans. In the case of the bap- 
tism of the jailer and his house, the ^fabric of immersion 
rests upon a very Insecure foundation, and will scarcely 
stand under critical investigation. But, apart from all 
this, you notice that there is nothing in the language of 
the Scripture which speaks of these baptisms that con- 
veys the least idea of immersion. The only other bap- 
tism mentioned in the Acts to which we need give at- 
tention, is that of Cornelius and his house and kinsmen 
and near friends. It is recorded in x. 47, 48. Please 
read. 



no BAPTISM. 

Robert. — "Can any man forbid water, that these 
should not be baptized, which have received the Holy 
Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be 
baptized in the name of the Lord." 

James. — What is your opinion of these baptisms, 
Brother Robert? Does the language here indicate im- 
mersion ? 

Robert. — I cannot say that it does, Brother James. 
Indeed, on the contrary, it would appear that, instead of 
the subject being applied to the water, the water was 
applied to the subject. In immersion, the water is not 
handled, but the subject. The expression of Peter — "Can 
any man forbid water," seems to teach that the water was 
applied to the subject, and not the subject to the water. 
This would not be immersion. 

James. — I am glad you see the point, Brother Robert. 
It seems a small thing, and yet it effectually closes the 
door against immersion. Peter evidently connects the 
baptism with water with the baptism of the Holy Ghost; 
and as the Holy Ghost fell upon, or was poured upon 
the parties, in order to any resemblance between the bap- 
tisms, the water must fall upon, or be poured upon those 
to be baptized. We are told in the 45th verse that "on 
the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy 
Ghost ;" and then, in the 47th verse, Peter asks the ques- 
tion, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not 
be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well 
as we?" The very form of the question indicates the 
mode of application — "Can any man forbid water?" 
"God," he would say, "has not withheld His Holy Spirit 
from these Gentiles — they have been made members of 
his family by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as well as 
we ; now, can any man forbid the application of water 
to them by which they become members of Christ's 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. in 

Church on earth?" And no one objects, he orders the 
water of baptism to be applied to them. How? Of 
course, in such a way as to symbolize the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost — by pouring or sprinkling or falling upon. 
No other way could represent the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost. So that, instead of any semblance of immersion 
in this case, pouring or sprinkling is clearly deduceable. 

Robert. — Brother James, I think your reasoning is 
without a flaw. And whether immersion is a baptism or 
not, no one can get around the fact that Cornelius and 
those with him, were baptized by pouring or sprinkling. 

James. — Brother Robert, you display a nobleness of 
mind in this instance, that distinguishes you from all 
others of your persuasion. I have met but few immersers, 
I may say not any, who were willing to listen patiently 
to an argument from a Pedobaptist. And if circum- 
stances forced a hearing on them, they closed their minds 
against conviction ; or if convinced, they turned away in 
anger. And of them it could truly be said: ''the last 
state of that man is worse than the first." The next men- 
tion of baptism worthy our attention is that in Romans 
vi. 4. Please read it, brother, and tell me what you 
think of it. 

Robert. — "Therefore, we are buried with him by bap- 
tism into death ; that, like as Christ was raised up from 
the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
should walk in newness of life." Brother James, I am 
almost afraid to express myself on this baptism. You 
see, the Apostle very clearly states that we are buried by 
baptism; and you know we cannot be buried by sprink- 
ling or pouring. This must be immersion. All our 
preachers refer to this when speaking about baptism, and 
I have noticed they refer to it very often. I have never 
really given this portion of the Word very much thought. 



112 BAPTISM. 

The mere mention of burial by baptism has heretofore 
satisfied me that immersion was what was meant. 

James. — Just so, Brother Robert, and yet there is one 
Httle word in that expression of the Apostle Paul that 
upsets your whole theory. There is a word of two letters 
in there that just plays havoc with immersion. You will 
notice that it is not in baptism we are buried with Christ, 
but BY baptism, or through baptism, or by means of bap- 
tism. Do you get the idea? The baptism is not the 
burial^ nor is the burial the baptism; but it is through, or 
by the baptism we are buried with Christ "into death." 
What a transformation that little word "by" works on 
the picture in the imagination of you immersers. I have 
noticed that immersers lay great stress on the baptism 
mentioned here; and I must say it is worthy of all the 
stress that can be laid upon it. The figure is very strong 
and shows the importance of the doctrine involved. You 
will notice that the baptism mentioned here issues in a 
death of some kind — "we are buried with him/' that is 
with Christ; "we are buried with him by baptism into 
death. Do you catch the force of the expression? It is 
not buried with him in his burial in the tomb, or anything 
resembling that. But it is a burial into death, a death 
in which we, in some way, are participants, and which, 
in some way, has relation to Christ's death upon the cross. 
The Apostle had just taught the great doctrine of justi- 
fication by faith, and in this chapter is meeting the most 
common and most plausible objection that could be raised 
against it. The objection to the doctrine of justification 
by faith alone is — if a man is saved by grace, and justified 
by faith alone, the greater sinner he is and the longer he 
continues to sin, there is the greater exhibition of grace 
in his salvation ; and hence it is concluded that this doc- 
trine which the Apostle teaches is wrong, because it 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 113 

would offer an inducement for men to continue in sin, 
that grace might abound. Now, the Apostle meets this 
objection to his doctrine in this 6th chapter of Romans. 
In the beginning of it he presents the objection, "What 
inference," says he, "shall we draw from this doctrine of 
justification through faith in the righteousness of Christ?" 
^' Shall we infer that a man continue in sin? God for- 
bid" ! Far from this. "Did not Christ die for sin, and 
thus put an end to it?" And as we, by baptism are in 
Christ, so, in the eye of the law, we died with him on the 
cross, and, "being dead with him unto sin, we should rise 
with him to newness of life," or to a new life, a life of 
holiness. "It would be absurd to think that one who is 
dead unto sin should continue to live in it." This is the 
argument of the Apostle, and you perceive it is not only 
logical, but running over with good, sound sense. Being 
one with Christ in his death, we are, therefore, united to 
him, and our sins are put away out of sight, or buried 
through his death. But it is this baptism that makes us 
one with Christ, and it can, therefore, be none other than 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It is only through or 
"by" this baptism we can partake of the benefits of 
Christy's death, and only through it are we united to 
Christ and regarded as having died with him on the cross. 
The words ''into death" are connected with the baptism, 
and are not to be separated from it. It is by a baptism 
into death we are united to Christ, as we are informed in 
the 3rd verse. We are said to be buried in Christ, that 
is, we are hid in him and effectually united with him in 
his death. The same idea is expressed in the 5th verse 
by saying "we are planted together in the likeness of his 
death;" and in the 8th verse, by saying "we are dead 
with him." So you see, your burial form of baptism — 
your immersion — finds no resting-place in this 4th verse 



114 BAPTISM. 

of the 6th chapter of Romans. The baptism there spoken 
of is an efficient agent in bringing about the death as to 
sin. As no water baptism in any form can produce this 
effect, it is evident the Holy Spirit is not speaking of 
water baptism at all. Now, we will take up another por- 
tion of Scripture which speaks of baptism and burial;, and 
try to find out what it teaches. I have reference to the 
language of this same Apostle in his letter to the Colos- 
sians ii. 12. Please read, Brother Robert. 

Robert. — "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also 
ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation 
of God, who hath raised him from the dead." 

James. — This language bears a close resemblance to 
that in Romans. This, we might expect, when the same 
person is writing to different parties on the same subject. 
We have just seen that to be ''buried by baptism into 
death" does not teach any mode of baptism with water. 
It fs expressly stated that those who are "buried with him 
by Baptism into death," are "baptized into Jesus Christ ;" 
that they "walk in newness of liffe," "have their old man 
crucified;" "do not serve sin;" are dead unto sin;" have 
"obeyed from the heart;" are "made free from sin;" are 
the "servants of righteousness ;" are "become servants of 
God ;" are risen with him "through the faith of the opera- 
tion of God;" are "quickened together with him;" and 
have '^their trespasses forgiven." The persons thus de- 
scribed must be true Christians. No external application 
of water in any mode, or by any person, could possibly 
remove from any sinner his carnal mind, "which is 
enmity against God," and produce in him that spiritual 
condition which is here described. As no baptism but 
that of the Holy Ghost can produce this new and spiritual 
walk, whenever this "newness of life" is produced, bap- 
tism with the Holy Ghost, or regeneration, has taken 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 115 

place. But this holy walk results from "being baptized 
into Christ's death;" therefore this baptism must be that 
of the Holy Ghost, and not water baptism; for water 
baptism does not produce nor is it always accompanied 
with, this new life. The baptism, therefore, mentioned 
in these Scriptures, being the baptism of the Holy Ghost, 
does not teach nor allude to immersion, nor to water 
baptism in any form. Notice the language of Scripture — 
Christians, it is said ''are risen with Christ, through the 
faith of the operation of God;" not they shall rise. It 
is the past tense, and not the present or future — they 
ARE risen. This rising is not the act of coming out of 
the grave, either watery or otherwise; nor is it the res- 
urrection of the just, when God shall call the bodies of 
his people from the dust. Ye are risen is the language, 
and not ye sliall rise. This rising, then, which is by 
faith, and which has already taken place in the case of 
every true Christian, must be a rising from that state in 
which he was dead in sin. But rising from a state of 
death in sin, is simply to be delivered from its power by 
the regenerating grace of God's Spirit ; and to deliver the 
soul from the power of sin, and remove its guilt, cannot 
be alluded to, nor represented by, taking the body from 
under the water in immersion. Christ's sufferings and 
death upon the cross were called a baptism ; through this 
baptism he made an end of sin, and believers are repre- 
sented as being with him on the cross, and dying with 
him there, and putting off there the old body of sin. 
Through this baptism on the cross sin is buried, or put 
out of sight. This was the object of Christ's death — 
that sin might be destroyed, and put out of sight. And 
so by the operations of the Holy Spirit upon the human 
soul, which is called the "circumcision made without 
hands," men are brought into union with Christ, or bap- 



ii6 • BAPTISM. 

tized into him, and represented as being with him on the 
cross and leaving there, through that baptism, the old 
carnal nature, get a new spiritual nature through the bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost, and are raised to newness of life 
"through the faith of the operation of God." Hence 
Christians are spoken of as being in Christ, and through 
the death of Christ, and their death as being in him, their 
sins are buried or put out of sight. Previous to this 
they were dead in sin, and the uncircumcision of the 
flesh; but now they are quickened together with him, 
having all their trespasses forgiven. Hence, you perceive, 
that the baptism mentioned in Romans and Colossians 
has no reference to water baptism at all ; but as the text 
and context clearly show, has direct reference to that 
operation of the Holy Spirit, or baptism of the Holy 
Ghost, through which we are united to Christ in our 
effectual calling. 

Robert. — Brother James, you have given me the best 
explanation of the Scriptures that mention baptism in 
Romans and Colossians I have ever heard. Our ministers 
do no more than refer to these passages as teaching im- 
mersion, or buried by baptism. I must say that, from 
what you have said, to confound the baptism spoken of 
in Romans and Colossians with water baptism, robs the 
Scriptures of their true meaning and purpose, and de- 
prives the Christian of that uplift which the Holy Ghost 
intended he should receive. 

James. — Yes, Brother Robert, immersers rob these pre- 
cious statements of the Holy Spirit, in reference to the 
union of the Christian with his blessed Saviour, of their 
uplifting power, and cheats the believer of the benefits 
of the precious doctrine involved. But let us turn our 
attention now to the baptism of the children of Israel in 
their passage through the Red Sea. ist Cor. x. 2: ''And 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 117 

were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." 
What do you make of that baptism, Brother Robert? Do 
you think there was an immersion there? 

Robert. — Well no, Brother James, not in the sense 
in which we use the word. Immersion means plunging 
under the water, and I do not think the Israelites were 
put under the sea, or under the cloud. 

James. — No, Brother Robert, they were not. We are 
distinctly told ''that the waters of the sea divided, and 
stood as a wall upon the right hand and upon the left, 
and the people went through on dry land." The cloud 
settled upon them from above, and there was nothing 
in the transaction to resemble an immersion. If this 
teaches anything as to mode of baptism, it certainly 
teaches pouring, or coming upon — the cloud came upon 
the people from above, or overshadowed them. But with 
this case, and some others I might mention, before your 
mind, what are you going to do with the Baptist state- 
ment, that ''nothing is baptism but immersion; immersion 
alone is baptism?" Paul calls this a baptism, and yet it 
is plain that the Israelites were not immersed. 

Robert. — In the face of this case that statement of the 
Baptists will not stand. Brother James. I feel you are 
shattering our foundations at every point. 

James. — Well, Brother Robert, let that pass, and let 
us continue. We have nearly exhausted the portions of 
Scripture that mention baptism. That in Gal. iii. 27, has 
reference to that baptism which brings all who experience 
it into Christ. This, we are taught, is the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost. Please read it and tell me what you think 
of it. 

Robert. — "As many of you as have been baptized into 
Christ have put on Christ." This baptism is, evidently, 
as you say, the baptism of the Holy Ghost. 



1x8 BAPTISM. 

James. — If it means water baptism, then men are 
brought into Christ by water baptism. But we know this 
is not so; for if men are brought into Christ by water 
baptism, then all who have been baptized would be in 
Christ, or Christians. But this is contrary to the Bible 
and experience. The only other Scripture to which we 
need give attention is ist Peter iii. 21. Please read. 

Robert. — "The like figure whereunto^ even baptism, 
doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth 
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward 
God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 

James. — The Apostle is not talking about water bap- 
tism here, you notice, but about the baptism that saves, 
which is the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It is not a 
baptism that represents the putting away of the filth of 
the flesh — ^such as John's baptism — but a baptism that 
gives the answer of a good conscience toward God. It is 
something that saves, and he makes the Ark a figure 
of it. Speaking of the people who lived in the days of 
Noah, he says that — "the same Spirit that raised Christ 
from the dead preached to the people in the days of 
Noah ; which sometime were disobedient, when once the 
long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while 
the Ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight 
souls, were saved by water. The like figure whereunto, 
even baptism, doth now save us." It is the baptism by 
which we are saved from God's wrath he is speaking 
about, and he makes the Ark a figure of it. This is the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost, and not water baptism, as we 
all know. You see^ then, there is no immersion here. 
Now, Brother Robert, we have had before us every pas- 
sage in the New Testament where baptism is mentioned, 
in the way of an original statement. There are other 
places where the word baptism is used, but they are only 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 119 

repetitions of the incidents we have investigated. Now, I 
ask you as an honest man an'd a Christian, have we seen 
even one instance of baptism where the Scriptures teach 
immersion, or where immersion could be logically de- 
duced as the mode of Christian baptism? 

Robert. — Brother James, I am greatly astonished at 
the result of our candid and careful examination of the 
Scriptures on the subject of baptism. I confess that very 
early in our study, my convictions as to immersion being 
Christian baptism were seriously shaken. The many 
places where water baptism was coupled with the bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost gave rise to two ideas in my 
mind. First, that the doctrine that baptism represented 
the burial and resurrection of Christ must be given up; 
and, second, that the yielding of this point would very 
unfavorably affect the whole doctrine of immersion ; for 
there is nothing else that immersion can represent — and 
baptism must, in the nature of the case, represent some- 
thing. 

James. — Brother Robert^ such ideas would naturally 
present themselves to an ingenuous mind. Even a casual 
view of the Scriptures would soon dissipate the idea that 
Christian baptism was intended to represent the burial 
and resurrection of Christ. Along with this, there is the 
idea of the difficulties that often arise in connection with 
immersion — such as the immersing of persons in delicate 
health, in the winter season, or the immersing of one 
who might make a profession of faith on a sick bed, or 
the immersing of persons in the frigid zone, or of per- 
sons professing faith where water is not found in such 
quantities as immersion demands. All these circumstanes 
and others not mentioned, make immersion incompatible 
with the simplicity of the worship of God as unfolded to 
us in the gospel, and brings it into strong contrast with 



I20 BAPTISM. 

the simplicity of the other sacrament of the church — the 
Lord's Supper, 

Robert. — Brother James, I had never thought of the 
difficulties that might lie in the way of the observance of 
the sacrament of baptism in many cases. There certainly 
might be circumstances in a case where baptism by im- 
mersion would be utterly impracticable, and it would not 
be like God to command us to observe a sacrament where 
the circumstances made the observance of it impossible. 
There is no doubt but that baptism by sprinkling or pour- 
ing meets the demands in all conceivable cases with 
greater readiness than immersion, and is more in con- 
formity with the simplicity of the gospel. 

James. — ^Let us now review the whole ground of our 
investigations, and sum up our discoveries and bring 
them before our mind in concrete form. We have had 
before us several times every instance of baptism men- 
tioned in the New Testament. We have seen that bap- 
tism is always mentioned in connection with the work of 
the Holy Spirit, and that in such a way as to teach that 
water baptism is a sign or symbol of the baptism of the 
Holy Ghost. We have seen that there is not one instance 
where immersion is either taught or logically deducible. 
We have seen that immersion was physically impossible 
on the day of Pentecost. We have seen, in fact, that the 
New Testament knows nothing of immersion as an ordi- 
nance in the Christian Church. We have seen that Christ 
did not institute baptism as an ordinance until after his 
crucifixion and resurrection; and from the nature of his 
command to his disciples just before his ascension, it 
is evident that the Christian Church, as such, was not set 
up until the day of Pentecost. On that day is brought to 
our mind most clearly the unity of interest of the three 
Persons in the Godhead in the salvation of men, and the 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 121 

part each plays, so to speak, in the great work of human 
redemption. With the New Testament in our hand, we 
can read the Old under clearer light, and see here and 
there the glorious Trinity. But without the New Testa- 
ment no definite idea of the distinction of Persons would 
present itself; that is, in such a way as that each had 
his peculiar work to perform in our redemption. The 
obscurity of the Old Testament on this great and funda- 
mental doctrine is illustrated by the language of John's 
disciples when they said to Paul : "We have not so much 
as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." Whatever 
may have been the nature and the extent of the operations 
of God upon the disciples of our Lord, previous to the 
day of Pentecost, it is very evident there was something 
lacking in them; there was something they needed to 
know, and something they could only learn through the 
revelation of the third Person of the adorable Trinity. 
They had listened to the instruction of Jesus for some 
years; they had witnessed the divine power in number- 
less instances ; they had believed on him and had re- 
ceived the Holy Spirit in some measure, for he had 
breathed him upon them. But there was still something- 
lacking, and which they could only obtain from the 
Holy Ghost as a distinct Person, and in his particular and 
peculiar operations as a distinct agent in the application 
of the salvation purchased by the Lord Jesus Christ. And 
as baptism was to be administered in the name of the 
Trinity, Christian baptism could not have been admin- 
istered previous to the day of Pentecost, as only on that 
day did the Holy Ghost display himself as a distinct 
Person, and as a distinct, active agent in the work of 
redemption. On the day of Pentecost the Church made 
its last grand step in the way 'of development — on that 
day it threw off its old garments of types and shadows 



122 BAPTISM. 

and priestly intercessions, and stood forth in all the bril- 
liancy of its glorified Head. With the cross in its hand 
and the Holy Spirit in its heart, it proclaimed the unity 
of the Trinity, the unity of the human family, the power 
of the blood of Christ, and salvation to all without dis- 
tinction who believe in the Lamb of God. The day of Pen- 
tecost marked an epoch' in the history of the Church of 
the redeemed. All the baptisms that preceded it, however 
numerous, or whatever may have been the intention in 
them, or whatever benefits they may have conferred, or 
whatever the mode of their administration, were not 
Christian baptisms; and therefore afford no argument in 
the discussion of Christian baptism, either as to form 
or legal effect. It is foolish, then, to admonish us to 
follow Christ in baptism in the sense in which it is usually 
done ; and those who so admonish us show clearly that 
they misapprehend the great mission of John the Bap- 
tist — ^the character of his preaching and the object of his 
baptism. Besides all this, such an exhortation is a flat 
contradiction by these same parties as to the time of the 
setting up of the Church. They teach, and hold tena- 
ciously to the doctrine, that the Church was not set up 
until the day of Pentecost; and this they must do to be 
consistent with their other doctrine that "infants have 
no right to church membership." From all this it follows 
that Christian baptism, as an ordinance in the Church, 
could not have been practiced before the Church was set 
up, nor before baptism was instituted; otherwise we 
would have a thing existing before it began to exist. It 
must be yielded, then, either that the Church existed be- 
fore John the Baptist came, or that John set it up, or that 
John's baptism and all others that preceded the day of 
Pentecost, were not Christian baptisms. But if the 
Christian dispensation, or the Church under it, is what 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 123 

is meant by the "kingdom of heaven," then it did not 
exist before John, nor did John set it up, nor did Jesus 
and his disciples set it up, for they all preached it as "at 
han3;" and certainly a thing that is only "at hand" has 
not yet come. Hence, it follows again that John's bap- 
tism was not Christian baptism; neither were any bap- 
tisms administered by the disciples of our Lord previous 
to his resurrection, and previous to its institution, 
Christian baptisms, in the sense in which the term is now 
used. So that when we are admonished to follow Christ 
in baptism, we are admonished to follow him in a thing 
that is not Christian baptism, a thing that is not what 
it is represented to be; for Christ's baptism was not 
Christian baptism, because it was administered before 
Christian baptism was instituted, and before the Chris- 
tian Church was set up. If the admonition was less in- 
definite, if it was made more specific, if we were told to 
submit to the mode of Christ's baptism, without any 
reference whatever to the character of that baptism^ and 
what was involved in it, we might willingly listen to the 
exhortation, and retort with great truth, that sprinklers 
or pourers are those, and those alone, who follow Christ 
in baptism. If, in the absence of positive statement, in- 
ferences from Scripture are permissible, the clearest in- 
ference is that John baptized by sprinkling. The baptism 
of Christ had no meaning if administered in any other 
way. Christ demanded baptism on the ground that he 
must comply with law, and his compliance was not 
enough in the case. John must also comply with law — 
"thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness ;" and 
there was no law applicable to the case but the law relat- 
ing to the consecration of the priests; and this law de- 
manded the application of water by sprinkling. 

The object in Christ's baptism certainly could not have 



124 BAPTISM. 

been the same as that of the baptism of the multitude. 
They were baptized unto repentance, but surely it cannot 
be said that Christ was baptized unto repentance. But, 
while the object in view differed, there is nothing in the 
record to indicate that there was a difference in the mode; 
it is very evident that the mode was the same in both 
cases. This is still further evident from the fact that 
the outward sign of the legal purification of the people 
was applied in the same way as in the consecration of the 
priest, viz. : by sprinkling. Hence, from the evidence of 
both the Old and New Testaments, it is clear that John 
baptized by sprinkling. The discussion between John's 
disciples and the Jews about purifying, still further con- 
firms this, for this discussion arose in connection with his 
baptism. 

We have seen, from the language of Christ, when he 
gave the command to baptize, that he specified no mode; 
nor is there anything in the Acts or the Epistles to indi- 
cate that a mode differing from John's was practiced by 
the Apostles ; and, hence, we take it that John's mode 
was carried into the Christian Church. While John's bap- 
tism was not Christian baptism, it was recognized as a 
baptism, and the intention of Christ was, evidently, that 
this mode should continue ; it being the best to symbolize 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost — the thing baptism was 
intended to represent. 

That baptism with water was intended to represent the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost is evident from the twenty- 
one places of the New Testament where they are men- 
tioned together; 'especially is this clearly shown in the 
language of Christ to his disciples just before his ascen- 
sion, when he said : "John truly baptized with water, 
but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many 
davs hence." 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 125 

In our study of the Scriptures we did not find one 
place where the buorial and resurrection of Christ is 
spoken of as a baptism; nor did we find one place where 
baptism with water is brought into any kind of relation 
to his burial and resurrection ; there is not one passage in 
the New Testament that would lead to the inference that 
Christian baptism was, in any sense, meant to represent 
tEe burial and resurrection ; nor is there one passage that 
would lead to the inference that any Apostle at any time 
immersed any person. 

It is very evident from the Scriptures that baptism 
was the rite by which people were admitted into the 
Church in the days of the Apostles. In the second chap- 
ter of the Acts we are told that ^'the same day there were 
added unto them about three thousand souls." This ad- 
dition was to the number of disciples by baptism — "they 
were added unto them" Now, this being so, is it not 
reasonable to suppose that some kind of a relation ex- 
isted — some resemblance existed — ^between this baptism 
and that baptism of the Holy Ghost by which they were 
made members of Christ's spiritual kingdom, or by which 
they were regenerated and made children of God? It 
seems to me, even in the absence of Scripture testimony, 
thaJt what unites us to Christ's visible kingdom — ^the 
Church — should bear some kind of relation and resem- 
blance to that which unites us to Christ himself. But, 
according to immersion doctrine, no such relation does 
exist, for there can be no possible relation between the 
baptism of the Holy Ghost and the burial and resurrec- 
tion of Christ. All must admit that baptism was ad- 
ministered only after a profession of faith was made — 
where those baptized were able to make a profession — or 
after there was an assurance of the work of God's Holy 
Spirit; and if baptism was suspended upon this profes- 



126 BAPTISM. 

sion, the procedure logically connects water baptism with 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost, for this latter baptism 
was the ground of their profession of faith. To shut 
our eyes against this is to shut our eyes against a fact 
that stares us in the face wherever we meet a baptism. 
It was when Peter and the others witnessed the work of 
the Spirit upon Cornelius and the others assembled with 
him, that the question was put — "can any man forbid 
water." It was after the Lord "opened the heart" of 
Lydia that she and her house were baptized. It was 
after the jailer made a profession that he and his house 
were baptized. It was after the eunuch professed that 
"Jesus is the Son of God," that he was baptized, and so 
on all through the series. 

Now, he who does not see the relation between water 
baptism as practiced by the Apostles, and the baptism 
of the Holy Ghost, must shut his eyes to the facts of 
Scripture. And what does all this mean? It just means, 
if it means anything, that water baptism was not only a 
sign or seal cif the faith which they had, but was a symbol 
of that baptism of the Holy Ghost, which united them 
to Christ, and upon which their profession of faith was 
grounded. This is so clear that he may read who runs, 
and it proves that immersion is not Christian baptism 
at all, because immersion represents something that has 
nothing to do with uniting us to Christ, and is in no wav 
connected with our regeneration, which is the ground 
of our profession of faith. You must remember, my dear 
Brother Robert, that our regeneration is no where in 
Scripture predicated upon the burial and resurrection of 
Christ ; it is predicated upon the work of Christ as our 
Redeemer, and is the act of the Holy Spirit in applying 
to us the redemption purchased by Christ. 

Our justification is predicated upon the resurrection of 



' ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 127 

Christ, and is the sovereign act of God; but neither the 
one nor the other depends in any way, even in the re- 
motest degree, on the burial of Christ. The burial of 
Christ performs no part in the great plan of human re- 
demption, either in its execution or application. How- 
ever wicked the act of crucifixion, it had more important 
interests centered in it than the burial. The crucifixion 
was the act of wicked men, and yet if anything that men 
did to Christ deserves a memorial in the way of a Church 
ordinance, the crucifixion deserves it, for many and eter- 
nal human interests centered in it. But nothing depended 
upon the burial of Christy and it accomplished nothing 
except the fulfilment of prophecy. Of course, I do not 
mean to cast contempt upon it — it was a kind act, and a 
commendable act, and deserves our approbation, and all 
good men approve it. But, with all this, we must not 
attach undue importance to it, and teach that Christ in- 
stituted an ordinance in his Church to commemorate it. 
The burial of Christ affected neither the Son of God nor 
man, and there is not an instance in the whole Word of 
God that shows that he, at any time, instituted a religious 
ordinance to commemorate an act of men. Such a thing 
would be contrary to the whole polity of the Bible. There 
is not, and never has been an ordinance in the Church 
that does not direct the mind to God. The object of all 
ordinances in religion is to direct the mind to an effective 
agent in salvation, and to be a means of grace to the 
worshipper. But an ordinance instituted to commemo- 
rate a thing that had nothing to do with salvation could 
never become a means of grace ; for if the mind is turned 
to that, it must necessarily be turned away from the onlv 
source of grace. The burial of Christ was the act of 
men, and just so soon as the mind is brought to con- 
template an act of men will the spiritual faculties cease 



128 BAPTISM. 

to operate, and one will be injured to that extent. Where 
there is no spiritual growth, there is injury, and there 
can be no spiritual growth in contemplating an act of 
men; for just so soon as we think of man's work will 
the mind be disunited from God and spiritual thino-s. 

Immersion, then, is in the face of all Scripture and 
reason, for it commemorates and symbolizes an act of 
men, and cannot, therefore, be a means of grace. Im- 
mersion ignores the work of God's Holy Spirit, and ex- 
cludes any religious ordinance to represent it. Immer- 
sion robs Christian baptism of its true meaning, and of 
all spirituality, and teaches a doctrine repugnant to the 
whole Word of God ; because it teaches that the burial 
of Christ, which was the act of men, was a necessary 
factor in the plan of salvation. That this is true, may be 
easily perceived. Immersion, as baptism, embraces two 
acts — putting under the water and taking out of the 
water. Now, the putting under the water is the main 
thing in the transaction, for the taking out of the water 
depends upon that. If the putting under the water rep- 
resents the burial of Christ, the taking out of the water 
must represent his resurrection ; and as the taking out 
is dependent upon the putting into the water, lo,8:ically 
the resurrection (which is represented by the taking out) 
was dependent upon the burial, which is represented by 
the putting into the water. Hence, according to the 
Baptist doctrine and practice of immersion, if Christ had 
not been buried, he would not have been resurrected. 
Now, if resurrection is dependent upon burial, and im- 
mersion says it is, for you certainly cannot take one out 
of the water until he is in it, then those of the human 
family who have not been buried — and there are millions 
of them — will not be resurrected. I have no doubt, 
Brother Robert, but you see the absurdity of such a doc- 
trine as that. 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 129 

Now, my brother, we have dispassionately and pretty 
thoroughly examined the Scriptures on the subject of 
baptism, and the result clearly is, that baptism was in- 
tended to represent or symbolize the baptism of the Holy 
Ghost, and to this end the mode of its administration 
must be like the mode of the Spirit. The Holy Ghost 
baptizes by ''coming upon," ''falling on," or "being 
poured upon ;" and hence in Christian baptism, the water 
must be "poured upon," or "fall upon" the subject. We 
have not found a passage of Scripture to indicate any- 
thing contrary to this, nor anything that would lead to 
the idea of an immersion. The baptisms on the day of 
Pentecost preclude all idea of immersion. According to 
the Scriptures then, the conclusion of the whole m^atter 
is, that in order to Christian baptism, the water must be 
poured or sprinkled upon the subject in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, according 
to the practice of the Apostles. And, hence, anything 
else than this is not Christian baptism. 

Robert. — Brother James, it was I who suggested the 
study of the Scriptures on the subject of baptism, and I 
was anxious for this, because I believed that immersion 
was so clearly taught there, I would have.no trouble in 
convincing you of the truth of the Baptist doctrine. I 
believed you would accept of immersion as soon as you 
perceived it to be scriptural, and I felt fully assured that 
the Scriptures clearly taught it. But I see clearly now 
that immersion has no Scripture ground to rest upon. 
I think it very unfortunate that Baptists have taught 
that baptism represents the burial and resurrection of 
Christ, because such doctrine involves absurdities, and 
runs counter to other doctrines of their system of theo- 
logy. While I had never thought about it until you 
brought the matter to my notice, it is very evident that 



I30 BAPTISM. 

Baptists themselves connect water baptism with the work 
of the Holy Spirit, for they will not immerse until a pro- 
fession of faith is made ; and a profession of faith, as you 
have frequently remarked, is grounded upon the work 
of the Holy Spirit in regeneration. This naturally con- 
nects water baptism with the baptism of the Holy Ghost, 
and the baptism of the Holy Ghost cannot be represented 
by immersion. I see that, at this point. Baptist doctrine 
and practice cross each other ; they do not agree. Then, 
again, it is plain that the Baptist doctrine that the Greek 
word for baptism means immersion and nothing else, 
cannot be true, for the Bible does not show that any bap- 
tism recorded there was by immersion. It is very possi- 
ble that the Greeks gave the name baptism to an immer- 
sion, but, at the same time, it is evident that the Apostles 
gave the name baptism to sprinkhng or pouring. And 
as it has been logically and scripturally shown that 
sprinkling or pouring was the mode of Bible baptism, 
immersion, although a baptism, is not scriptural or Chris- 
tian baptism. I believe I am better prepared now to 
defend sprinkling or pouring as Christian baptism, than 
I ever was to defend immersion. The fact is, I now see 
that I never really knew anything about baptism, except 
what our preachers hammered into my head about being 
"buried with him in baptism," and going dozvn ''info the 
water," and coming up "out of the water." As to read- 
ing the Scriptures about baptism, and reasoning upon 
them as you have done, I never heard one of our preach- 
ers do it. They say often enough that nothing is Chris- 
tian baptism but immersion, but they never undertake to 
prove it, and thus they put their own people to a dis- 
advantage. 

I am thoroughly convinced that immersion is not Bible 
or Christian baptism, and as I like your doctrines and 



ITS DOCTRINE AND MODE. 131 

believe your Church follows the New Testament model in 
its government, I intend, on next Lord's day, to make 
application for membership, and to receive Christian bap- 
tism. 

James. — Very well. Brother Robert, I believe you to be 
conscientious in this, and will gladly give you the right 
hand of Christian fellowship. We have finished our 
labors on the doctrine of baptism, and I believe we have 
both been greatly benefitted by our study of the Word 
of God. 



y 



^j 24 ^- 



IV • 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



t^l/?l/ 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 665 155 m 





